[rspec-users] Fixjour and others

Jim Morris wolfmanjm at gmail.com
Sat Feb 7 21:36:05 EST 2009


Well sometimes one can't use an existing  library becuase of some
reason or other, like in my case not using ActiveRecord.

So I came up with yet another way to do it, I think it is a hyvrid
between Fixtures and Factories.

outlined here...

http://blog.wolfman.com/posts/42

On Feb 7, 8:16 am, Jay Levitt <lists-rs... at shopwatch.org> wrote:
> Scott Taylor wrote:
>
>  > [
>
> > "So my main objective with fixjour is to have the simplest
> > implementation possible, with a very simple API. So it will create the
> > following methods: new_[model], create_[model], and
> > valid_[model]_attributes."
>
> This seems to be an anti-pattern in the Rails community:
>
> "I can't follow Library X, so I'll write Library Y, which is lightweight and
> obeys YAGNI, and is the simplest possible implementation."
>
> I confess: I've done it too.  But it's nearly always the wrong approach.  If
> you can't follow Library X's *implementation*, but you agree with its
> *philosophies*, refactor it!
>
> Competing libraries should have different goals, different purposes,
> different anything other than just "cleaner code".  If Merb can refactor
> itself into Rails, you can do it with fixtures, authentication, file
> attachments, or what have you.  As easy as Github makes forking, the choice
> of libraries should no longer be driven by "this one was updated most
> recently" or "this one uses the most recent design idioms".
>
> As someone wrote recently: The minute you start coding, you're writing
> legacy code.
>
> Jay Levitt
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


More information about the rspec-users mailing list