[rspec-users] specs for attributes with default values on the SQL layer

Stephen Eley sfeley at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 16:44:31 EDT 2009

My question is, why bother?  Unless I'm missing something, testing for
the existence of an error that your code will never provide sounds
backwards. Instead test that you DON'T get an error when the required
value isn't explicitly supplied, to confirm that the default works.
(Although, really, the "pure" time to do that would've been before
writing the migration, to get the red-to-green verification. That may
be excessively pedantic though.)

On 4/18/09, Pat Maddox <pat.maddox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM, svoop <svoop at delirium.ch> wrote:
>> Pat Maddox <pat.maddox at ...> writes:
>>> Okay I must be dense because I'm not sure what you mean by it gets in
>>> the way of refactoring.
>> Actually, scratch that, because...
>>> And you're right about how it behaves...that's exactly how default
>>> attrs work.  If you want to test that your model doesn't allow invalid
>>> data, you have to explicitly give it invalid data.
>> Using .with instead of .except does the trick just fine and does just
>> that, set
>> the model explicitly to invalid data.
> gah, I totally get it now!  Wasn't noticing that in one case you were
> passing in a full attributes hash (valid_attributes) and in the second
> you were only setting one value.  Makes sense to me now.  Glad you
> figured it out :)
> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine

More information about the rspec-users mailing list