dchelimsky at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 07:21:39 EDT 2008
On Jun 4, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
> There's a general idea with rspec (and one which probably isn't
> present in other testing frameworks) that says that testing *should*
> influence your design.
This isn't really a framework issue - it's about TDD. Remember that
BDD started off as another way of framing TDD - it's roots are still
As you've read before, TDD is a design practice, not a testing
practice. There is a testing benefit we get out of it, but the great
benefit of writing tests first is that you start off thinking from a
client's perspective. This and the fact that you're adding small bits
at a time, doing the simplest thing that could possibly work,
generally leads to more highly decoupled nuggets of code than back-
> I'm sure this is one of the reasons that David considers it an "anti-
> pattern" - as it does not influence your design in any way. In
> fact, I developed the the stub_any_instance patch because I needed
> to test legacy code (legacy because it wasn't designed well), and it
> was the only way to get to the object.
> I'm sure David would have specific examples, and I'd be curious to
> see them.
any_instance is a global concept. Any time you're doing something
global in an executable example you're making it harder for yourself
to understand failures later.
I guess that it's a bit more harmless with stubs, so, as I said, I'm
still open to adding a patch. I'm just not going to make it myself as
it's low priority for me.
More information about the rspec-users