[rspec-users] Assumption tests

Scott Taylor mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Sat Oct 20 13:02:12 EDT 2007

On Oct 20, 2007, at 11:50 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 10/20/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Following up on the last idea: One thing that I don't think is yet
>>> widely understood is that there is no such thing as a "unit" or
>>> "integration" test - test happen on a continuum (the classification
>>> of a test is not a black and white sort of thing).
>> I'm glad someone said that.

I was thinking of him all the way (I never claimed I originated the  
idea!).  The reason that I brought it up was that it doesn't seem to  
be repeated much on this mailing list, the way some other things are,  
like "spec the behaviour, not the implementation"

Another idea of Dave Astels which I think has been lost, is that each  
spec should not map one-to-on onto each implementation file (If you  
rename the file, do you rename the spec? If you create tiny inner- 
classes, or start delegating to other classes, do you create other  
spec files, or include it in the current one?).  Honestly, this is  
another one of those ideas which seems it should be some sort of  
mantra, but I've never seen it on this mailing list.  Or maybe it's  
just the state of Autotest.


> Dave Astels said that 2 years ago.
> http://blog.daveastels.com/2005/07/05/a-new-look-at-test-driven- 
> development
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

More information about the rspec-users mailing list