On Sep 16, 2007, at 3:04 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > On 9/16/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> While the spirit of BDD is to spec first and code second, many of us >> have legacy code. Worse, some of us have legacy code without very >> good coverage. Recognizing that *I* have such code, I created a >> script that grinds through your .rb files and creates placeholder >> specs for each public method. >> >> While it is more sensible to spec behavior of code function than of >> individual methods, this tool can help jump start a transition to >> that wonderful place. > > Hi Steve, > > There are tools that will do this for you on java projects and in > nearly every case that I've seen them used, the result has been 100 > line test methods, one per object method, that take the object through > multiple states, become impossible to understand, and often just get > commented out. > > Worse, even though you sell it as a tool for dealing with legacy code > (code without tests), it will end up becoming the tool people use and, > even worse than that, they'll think it's BDD because it creates specs > and not tests. > > I beg you (I'm on my knees as I'm writing this) to throw this > manuscript in the fire now!
I agree with David (you can also look at the ZenTest suite, which has a similar tool). I haven't looked at the tool, but how about modifying it to create comments in the specs, somthing like this: # You haven't specified the behaviour of User#method1! # You haven't specified the behaviour of User#method2! Scott _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
