[rspec-users] Role of stories vs specs, revisited

Pat Maddox pergesu at gmail.com
Fri Jan 11 16:43:13 EST 2008

I'm going to hijack this a bit :)

On Jan 11, 2008 1:25 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> But the target of stories are system level descriptions of behaviour.
> This will inevitably appear to have some overlap with the specs for
> the outermost layers of the system. But when you start refactoring,
> those object specifications are going to change - the system specs
> (stories) should NOT. At least not as a result of refactoring.

In the first thread I linked to, I said something along the lines of
"maybe stories are better for refactoring, since you don't have to
change them."  Examples, on the other hand, sometimes have to be
changed when refactoring, particularly if you use mocks.

However, stories are probably too slow for refactoring, and some of
the problems with refactoring with examples are simply a matter of
lacking tool support, which should eventually be fixed.

I don't have any problem with that.  I do things that way, and I get
my work done just fine.  However, I'm having a tough time clarifying
my position when talking to people who believe that unit tests should
not have to change when refactoring either.  I don't think they're
wrong, actually.  It's just a different approach and I'd like to know
how to bridge that communication gap better.


More information about the rspec-users mailing list