[rspec-users] [ANN] rspec_todo -- spec'ing backwards

Scott Taylor mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Sun Sep 16 15:34:56 EDT 2007

On Sep 16, 2007, at 3:04 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 9/16/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> While the spirit of BDD is to spec first and code second, many of us
>> have legacy code. Worse, some of us have legacy code without very
>> good coverage. Recognizing that *I* have such code, I created a
>> script that grinds through your .rb files and creates placeholder
>> specs for each public method.
>> While it is more sensible to spec behavior of code function than of
>> individual methods, this tool can help jump start a transition to
>> that wonderful place.
> Hi Steve,
> There are tools that will do this for you on java projects and in
> nearly every case that I've seen them used, the result has been 100
> line test methods, one per object method, that take the object through
> multiple states, become impossible to understand, and often just get
> commented out.
> Worse, even though you sell it as a tool for dealing with legacy code
> (code without tests), it will end up becoming the tool people use and,
> even worse than that, they'll think it's BDD because it creates specs
> and not tests.
> I beg you (I'm on my knees as I'm writing this) to throw this
> manuscript in the fire now!

I agree with David (you can also look at the ZenTest suite, which has  
a similar tool).  I haven't looked at the tool, but how about  
modifying it to create comments in the specs, somthing like this:

# You haven't specified the behaviour of User#method1!
# You haven't specified the behaviour of User#method2!


More information about the rspec-users mailing list