yrashk at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 16:30:18 EDT 2007
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:19 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
>> different from reused examples
> But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse.
> The problem is that if I reuse an example, and then decide to change
> that example, I may accidentally change the meaning of other examples.
> This is possible w/ helper methods too, but I think it is less likely.
I see no difference, really. You can break anything, either helper or
example. But when using helpers, you'd likely to have worse code
> You can keep pursuing this if you like, but I can tell you right now
> that it is very likely not going to happen. We already have a few
> different ways to deal w/ reuse and this one seems more confusing to
> me than helpful.
I am not going to change anything, that's simply not my intention. My
intention was to check what people think about this approach. I just
found it very convenient
for my coding experience. I do not need spend time extracting
helpers, I do not need to keep single line examples that call
helpers. I just write down pieces of logic, that's it.
Anyway, thank you for your feedback.
More information about the rspec-users