[rspec-users] Assumption tests

Daniel Tenner daniel.ruby at tenner.org
Fri Oct 19 09:25:33 EDT 2007


Hi all,

I've been thinking about the whole validator/relationship speccing  
issue, and I came up with a suggestion, which I'd love to get some  
feedback on.

The full article is available at http://www.inter-sections.net/ 
2007/10/19/what-to-test-and-specify-and-where-to-do-it/ , with the  
relevant bit being about halfway down, but here's the gist of it:

1. "@user.new(some attr)  .. @user.should_be valid" is not behaviour  
specification, it's outcome specification, and as such should not be  
in any spec. It also happens to be testing someone else's code (the  
rails validation code), which shouldn't need to be specified since we  
didn't write it.

2. The reason why people (myself included) feel compelled to include  
stuff like that is, in great part, because it helps codify our  
assumptions about the way ActiveRecord (or any other external  
components) work, which are sometimes not clear (as with non-trivial  
validations) and liable to change as Rails evolves.

Therefore, these are a new kind of beast - not a system integration  
test (not system-wide or anything to do with users), not a behaviour  
specification (not specifying our own code, outcome driven) - but  
instead what I'm currently calling an "assumption test".

I feel that these should be formalised, because writing somethiing like:

it “should validate_presence_of digits“ do
   PhoneNumber.expects(:validates_presence_of).with(:digits)
   load “#{RAILS_ROOT}/app/models/phone_number.rb“
end

is only meaningful as a specification if you assume that  
"validates_presence of :digits" is the right syntax to use. So  
therefore, it is based on an assumption about ActiveRecord, that  
should be explicitly tested for at the unit level, so that if Rails  
behaves in a different way, you'll know about it at the unit level.

So my suggestion would be that we create an "assumptions" folder  
somewhere in the rails folder hierarchy, so that we have 3 beasts:  
assumptions, specs, and stories.

Obviously this could have dire consequences that I haven't thought  
of, hence why I'd like to hear what other people's opinions are about  
this. I've discussed some aspects of this briefly on #rspec with  
David (chelimsky) (I'm swombat), but would love more opinions about  
it, and it seems that all the fun stuff happens on the mailing list :-)

Thanks for any feedback,

Daniel
http://www.inter-sections.net/
(swombat on freenode#rspec)


More information about the rspec-users mailing list