[rspec-devel] Are rspec code actually "driven" out from the spec incrementally?

Huang Liang exceedhl at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 02:06:48 EDT 2007


It's nice to know that. I think it's very cool that we can actually use
rspec to drive rspec now.

On 6/22/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/21/07, Huang Liang <exceedhl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > :-)
> >
> > I did not see that it is impossible. It's exciting for me to know that a
> > tool can be actually driven out by itself because I have not done such
> kind
> > of thing before. Many tools like CruiseControl eat their own dog food,
> but
> > that happens after the tool has been in a minimal usable state.
> >
> > What I guess is if I want to use rspec to drive out the rspec, a spec
> might
> > look like:
> >
> > describe Something, " ..." do
> >       it "..." do
> >         # setup fixture
> >         # action and verify using should...
> >       end
> > end
> >
> > but in order to make this pass, actually we have to let rspec support
> > several base functionalities like describe, it, should, which might be
> too
> > much for just finishing one test. And when you are trying to fullfill
> this
> > spec(which is like a test), you are not focusing on the functionality
> > described by the spec, you have to work on some other functionality to
> make
> > this spec work first and see the test result.
> >
> > Moreover, if we are using stories to manage the requirements of rspec,
> we
> > may found the work contained in one story is not a vertical slice of the
> > whole functionality. The story contains much other functionalities that
> > spreads horizontally across different parts, which makes the story not
> > small, very testable and estimable and describing a very clear business
> > value.
> >
> > The above is just my guess. I'd like to know how the dev team actually
> drive
> > out this great tool.
>
> I misunderstood your initial question. Forgive me. The first versions
> of rspec were developed in small steps using test/unit. Eventually we
> got to a point where we decided it was dog food time. At that point we
> converted our test/unit tests to rspec examples, and since then any
> new developments have been driven directly with rspec.
>
> Sorry if that's not as exciting as you had imagined. I wonder how
> things would have been different if we had started with rspec
> self-hosting from day 1.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/22/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/21/07, Huang Liang < exceedhl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The spec in the source code package are very good examples and
> > description
> > > > for rspec. When I am looking at those spec, I wonder if the rspec
> are
> > > > actually driven out by those spec step by step or we just add those
> spec
> > > > after the core functionality of rspec has been finished?
> > >
> > > What do you think? :)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/attachments/20070622/40942ebf/attachment.html 


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list