[rspec-users] Mocks? Really?

Andy Goundry andy at adveho.net
Sat Dec 8 04:20:02 EST 2007

Thanks for all the feedback. Personally, i am working outside in, from  
views to models, so mocking does have its place. After lots of  
trialing, I am confident now that a Factory class can satisfy my need  
for using mocks and real models in different places. I define the  
characteristics of an intended model in the factory and ask it to  
return either a mock_model or a real one depending on my specific  
need. Once I've used in anger, I'll mail details of my implementation  
and experiences.

Although I have played with story runner, I have yet to decide how  
I'll fit that into my development process. In fact, I love story  
runner, it's just I am not sure how much time I can afford to assign  
to tests on client work whilst I am still getting up to speed.

As a note, I recently wrote a functional spec document for a client  
using the Given, When, Then approach for each use case, and the client  
loved it! It is a very clear way if writing specs.


On 8 Dec 2007, at 02:40, "David Chelimsky" <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 2007 8:30 PM, Priit Tamboom <priit at mx.ee> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>>> This is handy and keeps the view test isolated from changes to your
>>>> models, but is that really the point?
>> I was very confused first as well. It didn't make any point to me and
>> I'm not using it at all. As far as I know, I take it as an optional
>> tool to go nuts with views when needed. I will use it when some stuff
>> in view becomes super important to be there. However as an one-band
>> project I haven't feel this need yet.
>> Second thing is about how you like to develop your stuff. As far as I
>> know David start with Story -> Views -> controller -> model. I prefer
>> to go this way: Story -> model/controller -> views. So now you might
>> guess why specing views are nice thing when you go David's way
>> up-to-down.
>> Anyhow, mocking in controllers (and in views) makes much more sense
>> now with story runner in the big picture. General stuff 'does it work
>> at all' goes to story runner and specific low level stuff goes to
>> spec. So it's up to you if you care about low level stuff in views.
>> One thing what I still don't like so much is that rspec "force" you  
>> to
>> develop things super vertically or otherwise your mocks will be out  
>> of
>> sync very quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong !!!
> RSpec doesn't force you to anything at all. However, the agile
> approach tends to be vertical slices in short iterations. Working
> outside-in, using mocks, etc all ties in with that thinking.
> But rspec is certainly not going to throw errors at you if you decide
> to write your entire model layer first.
>> Oki,
>> Priit
>> PS. somehow autotest does not pick up stories to run. I haven't yet
>> investigate it why.
> This is by design. Autotest supports the TDD process - rapid
> iterations of red/green/refactor. Having them run your stories too
> would slow things down considerably.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

More information about the rspec-users mailing list