On 10/20/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These two specs are basically the same, and I can tell you that I > > would likely NOT write the first one, but I would very likely write > > the second one. This means that my decision is based on the > > implementation, which might bug our purist BDD sensibilities. > > > > > Which brings us to an important point. As is software in general, BDD > > is all about balance. It requires thought. It requires weighing > > opposing forces and making a practical decision. > > > > Doesn't bug me, at all. What bugs me is that this sort of mocking is > not in some other mock library or plugin, which would do this pattern > for me.
How would such a library know whether you want to store your FooCollection's Foos in an Array or submit it to a FooService? How would it know the APIs of all potention FooServices? Perhaps there are solutions for specific libraries - e.g. ActiveRecord, but even then you're going to have to specify structure in advance (has_many vs has_many through) and consequently change your specs when you decide to change your model. > These common patterns (for Rails) should be abstracted away > (as some have been doing with Rails' association proxy). There is no > reason that all of those implementation details *of another library* > need to be crowding the intention of my specs. Until this happens, I > need to know all of these details about how another library works, > which, for me, is too far off the scale (no balance there)... We're all looking forward to your matcher libraries :) Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
