On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Brian Takita <brian.tak...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Brian Takita <brian.tak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Amos King <amos.l.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks, David. >>> >>> I do often read the rspec list because of the discussions that you >>> site. The community maybe enough for me to make the jump. I can't >>> wait to be able to use RSpec and Test::Unit together as a single >>> cohesive framework. I'll keep working my side project with RSpec and >>> see what ideas I can come up with. At work I will continue to use >>> Shoulda, Test::Unit, and Webrat. We'll see what ideas can be ported >>> around. I'll also take a look at the book. >> You can run test/unit & rspec together already. >> >> All you need to do is: >> require "spec/interop/test" >> before your spec definitions. >> >> Here is an example: >> http://gist.github.com/99895 >> >> The shoulda integration did not work, however > What do you think of having ExampleGroup.should create an Example?
Aside from the fact that all of the specs for ExampleGroup would start freaking out? :) I'm not sure how to best get around this conflict. "should" means something very specific in rspec, and shoulda gives it a different meaning. >>> >>> I've worked on Webrat::Selenium and grid support a bit so let's see >>> where this can take me. Thanks for the ideas from everyone, and >>> you've all encouraged me to take a deeper look. >>> >>> Amos(adkron) >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:08 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Amos King <amos.l.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I wasn't thinking about a gun. I was just wondering if there is some >>>>> underlying reason that I'm missing. Is there a background structure >>>>> that I'm not grasping? Is there a huge piece of functionality that >>>>> I'm missing? Is it faster than Test:Unit or Shoulda? >>>> >>>> RSpec is not just about RSpec. It's about BDD. It's about encouraging >>>> conversation about testing and looking at it in different ways. It's >>>> about illuminating the design, specification, collaboration and >>>> documentation aspects of tests, and thinking of them as executable >>>> examples of behaviour. You can do this all without RSpec, but RSpec >>>> aims to help with innovations like: >>>> >>>> * strings as example group names >>>> * strings as example names >>>> * pending examples >>>> * nested groups for flexible organization >>>> * should[_not] + matchers (inspired by hamcrest - a java library) >>>> * one matcher supports both positive and negative expectations >>>> * improved failure messages >>>> * flexible/readable/customizable output formats >>>> * built-in mocking framework >>>> * plain text scenarios (now in Cucumber) >>>> >>>> Specifically with Rails: >>>> >>>> * component isolation. ZenTest offered separate test cases for >>>> models/views/helpers/controllers before RSpec, and RSpec extended the >>>> idea by allowing you to run controller examples with no dependency on >>>> views and vice versa. Some folks get nervous with that sort of >>>> isolation, but, generally, folks coming to Ruby from a background in >>>> TDD with Java or .NET are all over it. >>>> >>>> That's not the full list, but a good overview. You can get some of >>>> these things from other frameworks, but they almost all originated in >>>> RSpec, which has been and will continue to be a center of innovation >>>> in testing in Ruby since its creation in 2005. >>>> >>>> To be clear, it is certainly not the only center of innovation. >>>> Shoulda brought us macros, which are great, and we've made it easier >>>> to write your own in RSpec, and now you can use shoulda matchers right >>>> in RSpec. >>>> >>>> Micronaut adds a tagging system that allows you to group examples >>>> together in different ways. This is definitely something we'll be >>>> adding to RSpec sooner or later. >>>> >>>> Ryan Davis and Eric Hodel continue to bring us game-changing testing >>>> tools like autotest, heckle, flog, and flay. >>>> >>>> RSpec has been around for nearly 4 years now. It has matured quite a >>>> bit, and continues to do so. A twitter poll back in January suggests >>>> that the majority of people doing testing in Ruby are using RSpec: >>>> http://twtpoll.com/r/zhh2fm. Note that this poll pits RSpec against >>>> all other frameworks and it still gets the majority. Polls are polls, >>>> and in a community of over a million Ruby developers, it's hard (for >>>> me) to believe in the accuracy of a poll that 680ish ppl voted in. But >>>> hey, that's 360-ish ppl who are at least willing to say they use >>>> rspec, so at least we know that much :) >>>> >>>> The point being that with a lot of users comes a lot of mindshare. And >>>> as RSpec continues to mature and become easier to contribute to, that >>>> mindshare will grow. More and more extension libraries like >>>> rspec_on_rails_on_crack and remarkable will emerge, and RSpec will get >>>> better and better at supporting them. It won't be long before "rspec >>>> OR test/unit" becomes a false choice, and you'll be able to seamlessly >>>> use both in a unified suite. This is already largely the case, but it >>>> will get better. >>>> >>>> And let's not forget http://rubyspec.org/ >>>> >>>> As for which tools to use, you should use the ones that make you happy >>>> and make your job and life easier. If there is something that you like >>>> about shoulda over rspec, then use shoulda. If prefer kickin' it old >>>> school, stick w/ test/unit or minitest. Regardless of the tools you >>>> use, I'd recommend that you pay attention to RSpec and its community. >>>> There is a lot of action here. >>>> >>>> I'd also recommend that you read The RSpec Book. While the material in >>>> the book is taught through RSpec, and much of the book is very >>>> RSpec-specific, there is quite a bit of exploration of the process of >>>> BDD that can be applied regardless of toolset. Not to mention >>>> introduction to other tools like Cucumber, Webrat and Selenium. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the thought provoking question. I've been involved with >>>> RSpec since shortly after its creation in 2005, and I sometimes lose >>>> sight of why I got into it and why I stay with it. This has been a >>>> helpful reminder to me, and I hope you find my ramblings helpful to >>>> you. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amos(adkron) >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:01 AM, doug livesey <biot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I think it's that RSpec encodes some of the latest BDD into its way of >>>>>> thinking. >>>>>> It has a vocabulary that encourages that, so in a way, yes, it's all >>>>>> about >>>>>> semantics. >>>>>> Semantics that encourage agile thinking & practice. >>>>>> Also, it allows you to structure your specs (that become your regression >>>>>> tests) in a much more intuitive way than Test::Unit -- I don't know >>>>>> Shoulda. >>>>>> But if I understood all the pros & cons of two systems & preferred >>>>>> another, >>>>>> I'd use that -- there's no gun against anyone's head. ;) >>>>>> Doug. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2009/4/22 Saturn <saturn.st...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am also having same question that i can't find the reason why i >>>>>>> should go for RSpec instead of Test/Unit. >>>>>>> There is no compelling reason / advantage offered by RSpec except >>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is RSpec all about different syntax??????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks in advance for clarifying it??? >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Amos King >>>>> http://dirtyInformation.com >>>>> http://github.com/Adkron >>>>> -- >>>>> Looking for something to do? Visit http://ImThere.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Amos King >>> http://dirtyInformation.com >>> http://github.com/Adkron >>> -- >>> Looking for something to do? Visit http://ImThere.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
