On Jan 9, 2008 7:12 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/1/9, Kerry Buckley < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Jan 9, 2008 10:01 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I totally agree with you, David! > > > > > > For quite a while I was testing all my methods (even had to declare them > > > protected/package scope in java!), but I realized that I was getting > into a > > > lot of trouble. Now I've shifted to testing functionality in stead of > > > methods. > > > > > > Now, sometimes you might end up having small methods (typically a result > of > > > refactoring) that are being used by several clients. In that case you > should > > > start testing those methods, since they actually represent real business > > > logic. > > > > I wonder whether that is a smell indicating that the functionality in > > those methods really belongs in its own class?
> Well, I think it all depends on the scenario - but in a lot of cases it > should absolutely be considered a code-smell. Keep in mind that a code smell is an indicator, but not a dictator. It is supposed to draw your attention but you still have to consider the pros and cons and make a reasoned decision. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
