[rspec-users] Shoulda

Nathan Sutton nathan.sutton at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 19:02:01 EST 2008


There David goes, making sense again.

Nathan Sutton
fowlduck at gmail.com
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2

On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Jan 10, 2008 5:50 PM, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosophy is that
>> for the rspec_on_rails plugin.  I would think rails-specific matchers
>> would be endorsed at some point, since rails is so big on convention.
>
> It's actually quite sane. I'll give you an example: have_tag. That was
> initially implemented completely within RSpec. Rails was a moving
> target so it kept breaking. So we changed it to rely on assert_select,
> which ships w/ rails. It's been very stable since, but assert_select
> has not been updated with the new features - especially in terms of
> rjs, so it is no longer complete.
>
> What I'd really like to see now is that have_tag gets implemented w/
> hpricot, but doing so would risk breaking a lot of existing specs.
>
> With a plugin approach, there is no problem. The community can offer
> different solutions to different problem sets.
>
> Another issue is BDD philosophy. BDD is about behaviour. should
> have_many(:posts) is not behaviour. It is structure. I understand that
> there are people who view this differently, and I would not want to
> get in the way of anyone using that approach, but RSpec should not be
> sporting conveniences, even very pragmatic ones, that fundamentally go
> against the grain of BDD.
>
> FWIW,
> David
>
>>
>> Nathan Sutton
>> fowlduck at gmail.com
>> rspec 1.1
>> rspec_on_rails 1.1
>> rails 2.0.2
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Josh Knowles wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey, we're currently using shoulda (http://dev.thoughtbot.com/
>>>> shoulda/) on a project and I saw some things that would be really
>>>> nice
>>>> to see in rspec, namely the should_ methods, and especially the
>>>> should_be_restful method.  Do these go against the rspec goals at
>>>> all?  Or could an ambitious programmer go to town implementing  
>>>> these
>>>> for rspec_on_rails?
>>>
>>> The current philosophy is to keep these kinds of things as  
>>> plugins.  A
>>> few of us have started to extract common matchers into a plugin  
>>> which
>>> can be found at http://code.google.com/p/rspec-on-rails-matchers/.
>>> Feel free to submit a patch if we're missing something that you'd
>>> like.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Josh Knowles
>>> phone: 509-979-1593
>>> email:  joshknowles at gmail.com
>>> web:    http://joshknowles.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users



More information about the rspec-users mailing list