[rspec-users] Helpers in view specs

Steve vertebrate at gmail.com
Sun Feb 17 14:27:08 EST 2008

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:40:31 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2008 11:17 AM, Steve
> <vertebrate at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the example I actually have "include ApplicationHelper" in there,
>> and am using a method "row_class_for_idx" in the spec. It works. I'm
>> just wondering if that's bad form or not.
> You may want to give this a read:
> http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/02/testing-expect-literals.html.
> Please do write back here if you do and let us know what you think.

By and large I agree with what Jay is saying, and I try to use literals 
as much as possible already. I don't try to make my specs DRY by any 
means, and do in fact have much that is redundant because it improves 

I do have some arguments for constants and variable values though. For 
constants if you have the constant spec'd to ensure that it itself is the 
correct value, then why not use the constant in your specs? You're not 
saying that the code being tested has to use the constant, just that the 
algorithm comes out correct. If the spec for the constant fails, you know 
that it's not what it's supposed to be. If you don't layer your specs 
like this, then I could see how it would be a problem, but I personally 
spec my constants.

For variable values, such as using a method. Sometimes I just don't care. 
The method being called is trivial. The example I presented above is 
good. Right now row_class_for_idx returns "" for even, and "alt" for 
odds. Let's say in the future I wanted it to be "even", and "odd" for the 
class names respectively. It's a very simple requirement, used commonly 
to make sure the lists are going to display properly. It seems like 
something that's just tedious to go back and change. Also since 
row_class_for_idx has it's own specs, I know that it will be putting out 
what I want.

More information about the rspec-users mailing list