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

[Pat Maddox]

http://synthesis.rubyforge.org/ *just* showed up in my feedreader
(well, the links at the bottom did)

On Jan 11, 2008 9:28 PM, Jay Donnell <jaydonnell at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you were to rename deposit to credit, and withdraw to debit
>
> I'm more concerned with adding a parameter or changing the default value of a parameter. My fear is that given enough time and size there will be a fair number of inconsistent mocks or mocks that aren't doing any real testing. It feels a bit like forced exception handling in java.

Yeah.  I played with Synthesis a bit, and it doesn't handle this case.
 It's very early on though.

I'm not sure that you'll end up with a number of inconsistent
mocks...because if you have integration tests covering everything,
then you'll know pretty quickly when your tests aren't up to par.  But
it's not like you'd have a bunch of passing tests and broken
production code, and deploy that out.  Using mocks without acceptance
tests is like using Ruby without any tests.  It's just stupid.


> Does anyone know of any open source ruby apps (preferably rails) that use good BDD so I can see how it's done right rather than ask a bunch of questions?

Not really.  Rick Olsen has a Rails example app that uses specs.
There are a bunch of published plugins that use specs.

I'm working on a bliki thing in my spare time (which means never)
which will be open source.

Pat