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

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/22/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/07, Dan North <dan at tastapod.com> wrote:
> > Hi Aslak.
> >
> > aslak hellesoy wrote:
> > > On 8/21/07, Brian Takita <brian.takita at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is a way to utilize Test::Unit in rspec.
> > >>
> > >> There are a number of BDD frameworks that utilize Test::Unit to create
> > >> a simple implementation.
> > >>
> > >> This could also be a first step to using Test::Unit's runner.
> > >>
> > A similar conversation happened in the early days of jbehave about
> > whether to use junit's runner. We decided to go with our own runner
> > (like rspec did) because we wanted it to do other stuff (mostly
> > lifecycle callbacks).
> > > Using Test::Unit's runner might be compelling, but I don't know how
> > > easy it will be to make it behave like today's RSpec. We have a lot of
> > > extra command line options, different output and so on. I'm not sure
> > > what it takes to make it happen.
> > >
> > I don't think it would be too difficult to write an adapter to run under
> > test::unit. Right now, the describe method captures a block of code -
> > the description (aka context) - and the it method captures another block
> > of code - the example. You can replace these methods as follows:
> >
> > - describe Sheep dynamically creates a class called SheepTest that
> > extends a subclass of TestCase, then it executes its block to gather
> > examples, by using a modified it() method as follows:
> > - it "should baa" dynamically creates a method in SheepTest called
> > test_should_baa that looks like this:
> > cls.define_method :test_should_baa do
> >     begin
> >        alert_listeners(:starting)
> >        run_describe_block_with_it_method_disabled # so helper methods
> > are defined
> >        run_the_actual_example_block
> >        alert_listeners(:succeeded)
> >     rescue
> >        alert_listeners(:failed)
> >        raise
> >     end
> > end
> >
> > - Any before(:each) or after(:each) blocks get added to lists inside
> > SheepTest to be invoked by  boilerplate SheepTest#set_up/tear_down methods.
> > - before :all and after :all would be more tricky, but they are
> > discouraged anyway.
> >
>
> It's more like the ! ruby methods. It's dangerous, there is a non
> dangerous alternative and you should know precisely what you're doing.
> (perhaps we should rename it before! to follow that convention).
>
> For example, with Spec::Ui it's sorely needed. I know Bob Cotton will
> agree with me here.
>
> > All this would allow test::unit to find the adapted test case in
> > ObjectSpace with a bunch of test methods that it would run as normal. I
> > wrote a hack like this a while back so that I could have test methods
> > that started with "should_" instead of "test_" and it worked pretty
> > well. (Then I deleted it all - d'oh!)
> >
> > You can invoke the suite using testrb --options-to-test-unit --
> > --options-to-rspec-after-double-dash
> >
>
> I have enough trouble teaching people command lines in the first
> place. A more complex command line would not be received with open
> arms.
>
> > Most of the rspec command line options are about attaching different
> > listeners around the behaviour invocation, so this would still work
> > using a template test method.
> >
> > No doubt there are edge cases, but this would get us started.
> >
> > > What would be the main benefit for users? And for us?
> > >
> > Tools. Right now I can run a test::unit suite in eclipse using a
> > short-cut and get a nice red/green tree of tests that I can drill into,
> > right-click and re-run any test, etc. In contrast I can run my rspec
> > suite as a "ruby application" and see rows of dots.
> >
> > Any effort that goes into making test::unit easier to use (say in rake
> > or buildr) is immediately useful to rspec.
> >
>
> This is the strongest selling point - I'm with you here.
>
> Another one is that our codebase would be potentially smaller.

With Brian's recent refactoring, it's getting there. But, oooohhh -
what's this new shiny story runner thing?

>
> > Cheers,
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>