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:
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
> 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
> Anyways, thanks for sharing your findings.
My quest for enlightenment continues...
More information about the rspec-users