On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing > in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database > testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose > sample applicaiton uses fixtures. I also noticed that on the rspec > site, it says "Ironically (for the traditional TDD'er) these are the > only specs that we feel should actually interact with the database."
I wrote that bit - but it doesn't suggest that you should use fixtures or not. If I'm going to the DB I generally create the model objects I want right in the examples. re: fixtures - the argument against is that they are a pain to maintain - but there have been some recent developments like http://code.google.com/p/fixture-scenarios/ that seem promising. With the recent addition of Story Runner (in trunk), I'm exploring more and more the ideas espoused by Jay Fields on his blog re: mocking declarative API calls to AR (see http://blog.jayfields.com/2006/12/rails-unit-testing-activerecord.html) to support super-fast object-level examples in concert w/ end-to-end examples in Story Runner. So you have two separate issues here: 1. db or not db 2. if db, fixtures or not fixtures I doubt you'll find general consensus on either question. Good luck! Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
