I'm sorry, I'd like to clarify my statement about the model, view and controller (spec) separation.
From my perspective, model is an abstract definition which is a spec for itself; view interacts with controller under the model contract, and all the "model" code is actually low-level controller code which makes the high-level code work. Alternatively, it can be trivially said that the database state is equivalent to a sequence of controller requests. Hence the inclination to see the least model-related code in specs. Thanks, Costa. On 21 July 2010 17:28, Costa Shapiro <co...@mouldwarp.com> wrote: > Hello, > > (Surprisingly?) I find mocking AR (DM less so) in specs extremely tedious > _and_ intrusive. > > Having said this, I find the approach of top-down VCM speccing very > legitimate (cucumber for V, rspec for C, and probably unit tests for M). > That is, a model is an inherent though separate part of the controller and > trying to spec just the controller lacks efficiency (pragmatism) and leads > to frustration. > > Therefore, I've starting working on http://github.com/costa/rspec-orm > (everything is of concept-quality there, including the name). It's already > "working for me". > I think the README there pretty much cuts it, so I'd just welcome the > comments here. > Note that — I'm sorry — the code is not only unpackaged, but it is in a > separate http://github.com/costa/dev/tree/master/ruby/ in part (for a > reason). > > Again, *any* feedback is appreciated. > > Cheers, > Costa. > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
