[rspec-users] Assumption tests

Scott Taylor mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Sat Oct 20 16:37:40 EDT 2007


On Oct 20, 2007, at 4:29 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 10/20/07, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>> These two specs are basically the same, and I can tell you that I
>>> would likely NOT write the first one, but I would very likely write
>>> the second one. This means that my decision is based on the
>>> implementation, which might bug our purist BDD sensibilities.
>>
>>>
>>> Which brings us to an important point. As is software in general,  
>>> BDD
>>> is all about balance. It requires thought. It requires weighing
>>> opposing forces and making a practical decision.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't bug me, at all.  What bugs me is that this sort of mocking is
>> not in some other mock library or plugin, which would do this pattern
>> for me.
>
> How would such a library know whether you want to store your
> FooCollection's Foos in an Array or submit it to a FooService? How
> would it know the APIs of all potention FooServices?
>
> Perhaps there are solutions for specific libraries - e.g.
> ActiveRecord, but even then you're going to have to specify structure
> in advance (has_many vs has_many through) and consequently change your
> specs when you decide to change your model.

Sure - I'm only advocating a solution to AR, not a more a general  
one.  How many other (ruby) apps are built on top of a giant DSL?

A has_many call is a macro - it generates 9 methods.  I don't see a  
big problem with changing it in one place.  It's a much bigger deal  
if you have to change the custom stubs you've created for that one  
macro is 9 specs.

>
>> These common patterns (for Rails) should be abstracted away
>> (as some have been doing with Rails' association proxy).  There is no
>> reason that all of those implementation details *of another library*
>> need to be crowding the intention of my specs.  Until this happens, I
>> need to know all of these details about how another library works,
>> which, for me, is too far off the scale (no balance there)...
>
> We're all looking forward to your matcher libraries :)

Not going to happen soon, because I don't care to dig into the  
internals of ActiveRecord.  Maybe if I get really frustrate, it will  
happen, but for now I'm hoping someone else in the community with  
more AR experience will come up with something like this.

Scott



More information about the rspec-users mailing list