[rspec-users] RSpec makes me want to write better code
zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 13:21:29 EDT 2009
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Fernando Perez <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>> Fernando Perez wrote:
>>> Today is a big day. I officially transitioned from manually testing by
>>> clicking around in my app, to automated testing with RSpec + Autotest.
>> 6 months since my initial post, what happened in between?
>> - My controllers are getting anorexic, and that's good. An action
>> typically does only 1 call to a model and behind the scenes that model
>> will make other calls to other models and do some fancy stuff, this used
>> to happen in the controller which was bad. Now it has become so easy to
>> write model specs.
> Great! Keeping controllers simple makes life better on many fronts.
>> - I don't spec controllers, because it's too painful to do. I don't spec
>> views either, because I tweak them too often, and it would take me more
>> time rewriting view specs then actually coding the views. If there is
>> something to test for is the rendering of the css across browsers,
>> because that's terrible!
> I usually let Cucumber run through the basics of the action, but I
> write controller specs for interesting thing that affect the behaviour
> of an action such as requiring logic, or a certain permission, or
> special error handling logic, etc. Pulling these things out into a
> controller macro makes re-using them extremely simple. The next beta
> release for The RSpec Book will cover doing that.
> I write view specs because they *change* so much. I don't spec the
> structure of the page, just the semantics of it as it pertains to
> information I programmatically display or don't display. IME, when
> apps are small there is a feeling that Cucumber can do it all, but as
> the app grows Cucumber can be a burden as well. Cucumber scenarios
> can't do it all, and when you have interesting apps, hundreds of
> scenarios and hundreds of steps it becomes way too time consuming to
> try to find exactly what and why things died and why. I prefer focused
> view specs for this regression rather than simply relying on Cucumber.
> Also cucumber step definitions can become large and unwieldy. I like
> focused steps which do enough to prove a scenario works as expected
> and I like to drop down to specs for the details of it.
>> - I use cucumber+webrat to test that some important public pages render
>> without a 500 error. I don't care if the view has such div except if it
>> is a critical one. What I mean is that I won't test, all the assignments
>> that should be on the page, as some tutorials demonstrate. This is
>> nearly impossible to maintain.
> I disagree with the last two sentences here. I build my views spec
> first with examples that expect the result of "project.name" to be on
> the page. Only then do I actually add it to the view. I have had no
> issue maintaining this. Not only do I get a design benefit when its
> not just a simple model attribute, but perhaps a calculated field, I
> also get regression for free. I move swiftly, happily, and confidently
> on without worrying about manually verifying everything on the page is
> as it should be, I let my specs do that.
>> - I can refactor my code, immediately spot areas where my code got
>> broken, and fix it. Before some parts of my app would be broken without
>> having me knowing about it for a long time until some cool customers
>> report a few bugs, but this was not an acceptable situation.
> IMO, this is the case when people don't write view specs. Unless
> someone's Cucumber scenario covers everything on the view (which they
> don't unless its a super simple CRUD app). Half the time I wonder if
> people even know if their views are displaying the write things on the
> page over time. How would they not know w/o specs? Do they manually
> verify every page every time they deploy? That seems impossible to
>> - I don't use Autotest, it sucks too much power, and it is too much
>> distracting. From time to time I run specs to check if things look good,
>> and always before updating the code on the server.
> Agreed. I loathe autotest, but I don't run specs time to time, I run
> my specs all the time. It's a part of my development process. Red
> Green Refactor. It's not just a mantra, its a discipline. Although
> when I don't know what I want or need to do, I spike something
> (without any tests), and once I figure it out I scrape the spike (or
> comment it out) and drive it with examples.
>> - I have written my own Factory. It's not OOP, it could be refactored,
>> but it works 100% as advertised, provides default values, can handle
>> associations, etc. I am pleased with it (I tried factory girl,
>> machinist, etc and got pissed off). I encourage anyone to write his own
>> little factory, to get a better hang of how to write good specs. I
>> totally got mad with fixtures, it is impossible to maintain specs/tests
>> with fixtures. Impossible.
> Cool. Is it on github? I wrote my own as well, but then switched to
> FactoryGirl because everyone I talked to loved it, but now I wonder if
> they really loved it (or how much they actually use it) because it
> works for about 80% of the things I need, and fails horribly for the
> other 20%. I want to try Machinist next, but I'm sad to see you had
> bad experiences with it. :(
> And I hate the idea behind ObjectDaddy, adding methods to the model to
> generate spec data. Gross.
>> - I don't do true BDD, i.e: I still write code before specs, because
>> that's what motivates me. I consider that seeing my app living and
>> writing code for my app more important than writing specs. Specs are
>> still important, but only as a bug reporting tool, they don't add any
>> value for the customer. In this crisis If I wanted an employee to resign
>> by himself without paying him benefits (that's how it works in Europe),
>> I would make him write specs all day long, and forbid him from seeing
>> the app and play with it. He wouldn't last 1 week doing this.
>> What about you?
> You've probably seen this, but it never gets old, "Testing is for
> testers." When you focus on specs solely for the benefit of testing
> then you are only getting the tip of the ice berg. Traditional "tests"
> are really they to provide safeguard against regression. This is a
> secondary benefit to BDD. BDD is about driving your app from the
> outside in, focusing on the behaviour at different levels.
> For example, Cucumber lets you focus on the app behaviour, while view
> specs lets you focus on the expected behaviour of a view (to display
> "project.name"), and controller specs let you focus on the behaviour
> of a controller (such that only "admins" can destroy a project), and
> model specs let you provide examples for how it should be working.
> Focusing on the behaviour at these different levels forces you to
> write better designed code, more focused objects, simpler controllers,
> just-the-right size models, etc.
> A better design lets you move fluidly through the app as it evolves
> and changes. When you use BDD, you get a better design as a part of
> the process. As a nice secondary benefit you get protection against
> unwanted regression.
> I encourage you and anyone else to practice your BDD more. The more I
> practice the more fluently I can drive my app with examples form the
> outside-in, and the more capable I am to know when to write a
> controller spec and when not to---and it's not based on if it takes
> too long. The decision is based on experience for knowing how-to do
> it, and how-to do it well, and then asking myself, "Does this get me
> Not spe'cing something because you don't know how-to spec it well is
> most likely not an issue with BDD. It's a skill deficiency with the
> developer. The only way to make good decisions it practice and become
> more familiar with your tools. Then you will start making informed
> decisions that add value to your project. The alternative is that you
> make uninformed decisions and you or other developers will suffer down
> the road because you made a bad decision but didn't know it because
> you lacked the knowledge and/or experience to know it was a bad
This isn't intended at you Fernando. This is just "in general" my
thoughts, all of which have come from my own journey, as well as many
discussions on-line and off-line.
>> Best regards,
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> Zach Dennis
More information about the rspec-users