Ok, let me try to explain. I have some controllers that are doing
some kind of "main" action and some additional ones. These actions
are belong to different aspects of logic and thus
I'd prefer to test them separately to have clean and nice code that
can be easily modified.
Then, what's better to read?
it "should do main action" do
do_main_action
end
it "should set some value in session if there was no another specific
value in session before" do
session[:a] = 1
do_main_action
session[:b].should == b
end
def do_main_action
post :create, ...
end
or
it "should do main action" do
post :create, ...
end
it "should set some value in session if there was no another specific
value in session before" do
session[:a] = 1
given_it "should do main action"
session[:b].should == b
end
I personally like second one.
P.S. Examples above are surely artificial.
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This concept violates oo if you want to test whether or not r
> method calls another method you would do that in the test and label
> it occordingly. What you are defining is such a narrow use case I
> think it would be abused
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:30
> To:rspec-users <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] given_it
>
>
> On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>>
>> it "should do #1" do
>> ...
>> end
>> it "should do X after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_x
>> end
>> it "should do Y after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_y
>> end
>> it "should do Z after #1 Y" do
>> given_it "should do Y after #1"
>> should do_z
>> end
>
> Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples
> should never rely on each other that way - different animal from
> scenarios that involve steps.
>
>>
>> Or am I missing somethiing?
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:49 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen shared behaviours?
>>>
>>> On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
>>>> or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use
>>>> examples
>>>> (just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
>>>> sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly,
>>>> was
>>>> lazy to check), so I have created this helper:
>>>>
>>>> def given_it(name)
>>>> example_definition = behaviour.example_definitions.find{|i|
>>>> i.description == name }
>>>> instance_eval(&example_definition.example_block)
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> so it is possible to write things like
>>>>
>>>> it "should do something after another action" do
>>>> given_it "should successfully do another action"
>>>> do_something.should be_fine
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything already in rspec that allows me to do the same
>>>> stuff? Or was it a bad idea at all?
>>>>
>>>> Yurii.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
