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

Jay Donnell jaydonnell at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 11 20:11:18 EST 2008


>> The thing is that, ideally, you don't want to have to make changes to
>> the tests for object A when you're refactoring B.
>>
>> WDYT?

> Yeah, I buy that.  Not everyone does though.  Or at least not everyone
> feels that it's a particularly important goal.

I think the fear many of us classicists have is that if A uses B (and Bs interface changes) then A will pass but it shouldn't. We also have to go around updating all the mocks for tests that use B. With a state based approach we wouldn't have to change any tests assuming we've fixed the outer methods already. If we haven't then our tests will fail and tell us we need to.

I know, our integration tests should catch this. I'm curious what you guys mean by "integration tests" in this case. For example, in a rails app are the 'integration tests' always or usually testing the full rails stack by sending web requests and verifying against the response? I.e. simulating a user interaction? 






      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


More information about the rspec-users mailing list