On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Fernando Perez <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > > The next big step will be specing controllers, as it is more painful > than models, but now that my controllers are ripped I guess it will be > easier.
I've stopped. Mostly because of the question Jay asks in that article: "Why are you testing?" I realized I had *no idea* why I was testing controllers, except that I had been lurking here and reading the RSpec docs and assumed that was the Way It Was Done. Finessing all those mocks and stubs does chew up major time, and I noticed that the controller code I was spending all that time writing stubs around wasn't typically code that broke. Most controllers for most apps are so boilerplate that if you can trust your framework (Rails or Merb) you can probably trust the controller. "If it hurts, you're doing it wrong" is a pretty good principle across modern development. I'm sure there are people for whom mocking and testing every controller action isn't painful, or may even be fun. I'm not one of them, so there's no point in doing it just for rote. I probably _would_ do some controller isolation testing if I had something complicated to do in an action or if my controllers seemed prone to breaking and I wasn't sure why. As David says, knowing more techniques helps you pick the right one for the right task. I'm using Cucumber with Webrat for simple request verifications now and just matching on the output. I find it's more fun and doesn't hurt (after I fixed some bugs with the Merb autotest flow) and it tells me the same stuff as the controller testing, and more, in maybe a tenth as much time to write. -- Have Fun, Steve Eley (sfe...@gmail.com) ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine http://www.escapepod.org _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
