On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Yi Wen <hayafi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point, that's actually I am debating with myself everyday and haven't > got a clear answer. This is classical "calssic unit tester" vs. mockist war. > :) > > Talking about this case: > > 1. I haven't checked how should valite_presence_of is implemented, but it > could pretty much be checking if the value is left blank. So it is behavior > tests > > 2. I couldn't see any reason why I would want to write my own version of > check_to_see_if_this_thingy_is_in_my_whatsis. So this is not a very > realistic assumption. > > 3. By checking if validation fails when a value is left blank, I am actually > kind of testing Rails and here's why: what if they introduce a bug in > validates_presence_of that makes my test break? What if they have a bug in > valid? to make my test break? To strictly just testing *my* own code, the > test should be something like > Person.should_receive(:validates_presence_of).with(:email) > > I am not really advocating the view of mockists. Just throw a question here.
This is a good example of strictly testing *your* code. But, to the last statement--it is not a very good example of when to use mock expectations. I don't think it advocates an accurate view of *mockists*. > :) > > Yi > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Stephen Eley <sfe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen <hayafi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Without this syntax sugar, we still have to test validates_presence_of >> > to >> > make sure it's there and won't broken, right? >> >> Wrong. You don't have to test validates_presence_of. What matters, >> and therefore what you should test, is whether the model will complain >> at you if a particular value is left empty. >> >> validates_presence_of happens to be the name of the method in >> ActiveRecord that does that. But if you decide to write your own >> check_to_see_if_this_thingy_is_in_my_whatsis() method that does the >> same thing, a good *behavior* spec will not break. Because the >> behavior remains the same. >> >> If your spec breaks because you changed a method call, you're not >> testing behavior any more. You're testing syntax. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > -- Zach Dennis http://www.continuousthinking.com http://www.mutuallyhuman.com _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
