On 10/20/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I've actually come round on this one. I still believe firmly that there should never be a 1-1 mapping of examples to methods, but I've come to appreciate the ease of navigation afforded by mapping a single spec file (with potentially many specs) to a single production code file. I'm not recommending 1-1 spec file/code file as an absolute guideline. I'm certainly not there 100% myself. In another thread going on today I described how I sometimes use shared behaviours to deal with partials (instead of mocking the partial calls). There is, in a sense, a 1-1 mapping there, but the shared behaviour is only indirectly mapped to the partial. And mapping files 1-1 doesn't just aid human navigation. It supports Autotest, as you point out, and it enables tools like TextMate to support single command navigation between a spec and the code it is describing. All of that said, I must reiterate my very strong belief the mapping one example to one method is the kiss of death. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
