On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:22 pm, Ben Mabey wrote:
That being said, I'm a big proponent of outside-in development which
is largely made possible by being able to spec out your interface
with mocks *before* it exists. We had a good discussion on the
tradeoffs of using mocks on this list recently. Here is a message
from that thread, by Zach Dennis, in which he explains outside-in
development very well:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2008-September/008426.html
Hi Ben
That's a great post by Zach, thanks for the link to it. Zach - if
you're reading this - please blog it. I've had to delicious the
RubyForge page.
It seems like the merb community places more emphasis on application
wide tests- which is good since that is all the customer will really
care about in the end. Application wide tests are great (and that
is why we have cucumber)
I agree, which is why I find it odd that the Merb community is using
RSpec to do Cucumber's (or the classic Story Runner's) job.
but I wouldn't forgoe having a fast object level suite. Without a
lightning fast suite the refactoring process will be drawn out and
tracking down breaks can be harder without the focused object
examples. That has been my experience at least and so that is why I
like to have application level features which touch the entire stack
and then have faster and more focussed object level specs that rely
on mocking.
Exactly how I work, and (I imagine) the way most people here work.
Not that that makes it right, of course. But I find it invaluable to
have pure interaction-level spec, or one that wraps behaviour where
the output is more important than the interactions (eg parsing XML, in
my experience).
Anyways, thanks for sharing your findings.
My quest for enlightenment continues...
Ashley
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
