On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:45 am, Tarsoly András wrote: > This raises up a question in me about mocking or using real-life > models, because in some of my specs the setups getting extremely > bulky. But this is for another topic :)
Well while you have everyone's attention :) Often you can factor out the setup code - if you search through the archives of this list there's plenty of examples. But don't worry about having long setups - I've written some setups that aren't much shorter than the specs that follow. Write whatever setup you need to enable you to write solid specs, then worry after about making it look nice. I would say you should ALWAYS mock your models in your controllers specs. Otherwise you will further complicate your setups, make your specs run unacceptably slow, and you risk coupling your controllers and models too tightly. Many people in the BDD community (and at a guess I am assuming David is among them) would frown on using database access in your *model* code, because persistence is a separate issue to business logic. What you want is a set of specs for each of model (ideally, database persistence and business logic separately), controller, and view, and then an integration test, such as an RSpec story, that tests the full stack. Without this integration step, you will miss errors when you change the interface of a model. What you do not want is the Rails way of testing, where each layer of testing re-tests everything below it. (I recently saw a blog post where someone asked for comments on how people test views in isolation - it never occurred to me that some Rails developers still see that as an issue!) Having thought about it, you could argue Rail has no *unit* testing support built in at all. Ashley -- blog @ http://aviewfromafar.net/ linked-in @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran currently @ home _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
