[rspec-users] Something like rcov but more explicit?
port001 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 16:29:48 EDT 2007
I appreciate that testing every single line off code isn't the approach of
BDD, and indeed that isn't my goal, although at the same time I'd like to be
able to "see" with coverage reports just to what extent the code base is
Say I had ViewA that uses HelperA and ViewB that uses HelperB, ViewA and
HelperA both have specs, as does ViewB, however HelperB does not. With an
rcov coverage report this isn't visible, what I'm after is something that
can tell me "HelperB was executed during the running of ViewB, but its
behavior was not explicitly specified."
It'd like to look into seeing if this is possible with rspec, I'll have to
try convince my boss to allow me to devote some time to it.
On 20/06/07, Scott Sehlhorst <scott at tynerblain.com> wrote:
> I'm also sceptical about having a goal along the lines of "all methods in
> > our code must be invoked explicitly by specs". It's a very low level (too
> > low level IMO) way of approaching the overall behaviour of your app.
> > Aslak
> I would also add that it violates some principals of encapsulation. If
> you expose an object to perform an action, then an rspec test should
> interact with that object to test those actions. And only those actions
> exposed by the object. Unit tests should be the vehicle for testing any
> methods relied upon by the "outer object" to accomplish the action.
> I am very new to rspec (and rails), but my interpretation of BDD is that
> it should honor principles of encapsulation, and unit testing should be used
> for low-level testing. If this is not the spirit of rspec, I would love to
> know how other people approach it - then I can fix my misperceptions.
> my two cents
> Scott Sehlhorst
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users