On 7/6/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/3/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm very new to rspec, so if this is not the right forum please let me > > > know. > > > > > > I'm starting to spec my models first in an existing rails app, porting > from > > > a mix of Test::Unit, and simply_bdd amongst others. > > > > > > I'm at the point where I want to test that certain associations are > > > present. What I'm not sure of is should I test the association or the > > > method and return object. > > > > > > That is, if I wanted to test a has_many should I: > > > > > > Confirm the methods exist, and that the return an array etc > > > > > > OR > > > > > > Check that the model has the named has_many association through it's > > > reflections. > > > > > > On one hand the second one looks like it will be a bit more robust, > since > > > if there is a has_many relationship, then all the associated methods may > be > > > used througout the app. This would put testing in the one place. > > > > > > On the other hand, this would be really testing the implementation of > the > > > model rather than it's behaviour. The behaviour is to call > > > @article.comments and have an array of comments returned. > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > I think the jury is still out on this one. Both approaches present > > problems, and no better approaches have been proposed. I'd say try it > > both ways and report back on experiences. > > > > David > > > > > Cheers > > > Daniel > > > > > I went with the second way, testing the association through reflections. > The reason I did this is that by testing that there is a has_* or belongs_to > you are really testing the availablity of all the assoicated methods. Which > you are then free to use throughout your app. > > If you go the other way, you are not in fact testing if a model "has_many" > since this implies that all has_many methods will be included, not just > returning and setting an Array. > > If your interested I've put up the module that I am using to provide these > and a couple of other methods on pastie. This is my first go so please > don't expect anything spectacular. > > http://pastie.caboo.se/76462 > > Cheers > Daniel >
Wow I should really have checked that more thoroughly. I found many mistakes in that. Here is one I've fixed up. http://pastie.caboo.se/76470 Daniel _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
