We should write a test/spec, whatever you call it, *first* before you want your code. But it doesn't mean one who writes the spec/test will use a monkey coding the code to fix the test. To be realistic, a programmer will write this test, and implement it right away. Just like how TDD should be done.
Without this syntax sugar, we still have to test validates_presence_of to make sure it's there and won't broken, right? So this simple syntax is nice because it's lees code to type in. I really don't see how trained monkeys come into play in this scenario. :) I am not a huge fan of "spec contract" for unit testing. Unit testing is a tool for developers to write better, DRY-er and more loosely-coupled code. At most it is a communication tool among developers. It's never meant to be for non-technical / clients / business people. Cucumber might serve that purpose. Yi On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Alex Satrapa <gr...@goldweb.com.au> wrote: > On 19/02/2009, at 11:39 , Fernando Perez wrote: > > What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's >> already tested in the framework, and so readable that a quick glance on >> the model says it all. >> > > Some people want the spec to stand as a contract, so you can then hand the > spec over to the proverbial trained monkeys and have them write all the > necessary code from scratch exactly the way you want it written. > > These are not people I enjoy working with, so I play loose with the specs > and only spec stuff that matters to me at the time, code that little bit, > and get on with the next terribly pressing task. > > Alex > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users