[rspec-users] specs on private methods

Stefan Magnus Landrø stefan.landro at gmail.com
Wed Jan 9 05:01:15 EST 2008

I totally agree with you, David!

For quite a while I was testing all my methods (even had to declare them
protected/package scope in java!), but I realized that I was getting into a
lot of trouble. Now I've shifted to testing functionality in stead of

Now, sometimes you might end up having small methods (typically a result of
refactoring) that are being used by several clients. In that case you should
start testing those methods, since they actually represent real business
I talked to uncle Bob about this issue just a few months ago, and as far as
I understood, he uses a similar approach.

I think it might make sense to think of the facade pattern when you do your
testing - do you really care what happens behind the facade?


2008/1/9, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>:
> On Jan 8, 2008 1:25 PM, Matt Patterson <matt-lists at reprocessed.org> wrote:
> You should check out the bowling kata
> (http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.TheBowlingGameKata) if you
> haven't. At the end there are just a few tests and they all touch only
> 2 public methods, but there are many, many smaller methods that appear
> through refactoring. They are all thoroughly tested, though not
> directly.
> Cheers,
> David
> ______________

Bekk Open Source
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080109/786c9b45/attachment.html 

More information about the rspec-users mailing list