On Oct 20, 2007, at 11:50 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > On 10/20/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Following up on the last idea: One thing that I don't think is yet >>> widely understood is that there is no such thing as a "unit" or >>> "integration" test - test happen on a continuum (the classification >>> of a test is not a black and white sort of thing). >> >> I'm glad someone said that.
I was thinking of him all the way (I never claimed I originated the idea!). The reason that I brought it up was that it doesn't seem to be repeated much on this mailing list, the way some other things are, like "spec the behaviour, not the implementation" Another idea of Dave Astels which I think has been lost, is that each spec should not map one-to-on onto each implementation file (If you rename the file, do you rename the spec? If you create tiny inner- classes, or start delegating to other classes, do you create other spec files, or include it in the current one?). Honestly, this is another one of those ideas which seems it should be some sort of mantra, but I've never seen it on this mailing list. Or maybe it's just the state of Autotest. Scott > > Dave Astels said that 2 years ago. > > http://blog.daveastels.com/2005/07/05/a-new-look-at-test-driven- > development > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
