[rspec-users] Merb

Ashley Moran ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk
Mon Oct 20 17:43:12 EDT 2008

On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:22 pm, Ben Mabey wrote:

> That being said, I'm a big proponent of outside-in development which  
> is largely made possible by being able to spec out your interface  
> with mocks *before* it exists.  We had a good discussion on the  
> tradeoffs of using mocks on this list recently.  Here is a message  
> from that thread, by Zach Dennis, in which he explains outside-in  
> development very well:
> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2008-September/008426.html

Hi Ben

That's a great post by Zach, thanks for the link to it.  Zach - if  
you're reading this - please blog it.  I've had to delicious the  
RubyForge page.

> It seems like the merb community places more emphasis on application  
> wide tests- which is good since that is all the customer will really  
> care about in the end.   Application wide tests are great (and that  
> is why we have cucumber)

I agree, which is why I find it odd that the Merb community is using  
RSpec to do Cucumber's (or the classic Story Runner's) job.

> but I wouldn't forgoe having a fast object level suite.  Without a  
> lightning fast suite the refactoring process will be drawn out and  
> tracking down breaks can be harder without the focused object  
> examples.  That has been my experience at least and so that is why I  
> like to have application level features which touch the entire stack  
> and then have faster and more focussed object level specs that rely  
> on mocking.

Exactly how I work, and (I imagine) the way most people here work.   
Not that that makes it right, of course.  But I find it invaluable to  
have pure interaction-level spec, or one that wraps behaviour where  
the output is more important than the interactions (eg parsing XML, in  
my experience).

> Anyways, thanks for sharing your findings.

My quest for enlightenment continues...



More information about the rspec-users mailing list