[rspec-devel] [Proposed Refactoring] - Current ExampleSpace class subclasses Test::Unit::TestCase

[Jim Deville]

On Aug 21, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Brian Takita wrote:
>>
>>
>> What would be the main benefit for users? And for us?
> The main benefit is a clean, evolutionary path from Test::Unit to
> rspec. I just got this request from Nathan Sobo when I talked to him
> this morning.
>
> Alot of people are frustrated that they need to run rake test and rake
> spec, for example. It is a hurdle of adopting rspec. I've also seen
> resentment because of this.
>

Why not suggest that they only run rake? RSpec over-rides the default  
rake task.

> The evidence is the multitude of Test::Unit BDD frameworks.
> * test/spec
> * Spec Unit
> * Shoulda
> * Screw::Unit
> * Simply BDD
>
> It would be cool if we can consolidate effort and even be the catalyst
> to improve Test::Unit.
>

Agreed. Although I'm not entirely sure if the multitude of Test::Unit  
BDD frameworks should be considered as evidence for a desire to  
change. It could just be NIH, plus not knowing about RSpec when the  
framework was started. (Ignore this if you know it to be false ;))

> Additions to Test::Unit would simply work. Having a Test::Unit runner
> would arguably lead to a simpler codebase.
>

It would be kinda nice if there were a good plugin architecture to  
either Test::Unit or Rspec. Something that would allow frameworks  
like RSpec to be built on top of the runner, instead of around the  
runner.

> I don't mind taking the responsibility for the confusing
> Behaviour/Example architecture that is in our current release, but it
> was a solution to solve a problem rooted in the fact that we were not
> using Test::Unit.
>>

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/attachments/20070821/62c07c79/attachment.html