On Sep 7, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2011, at 07:53, Sidu Ponnappa wrote:
>
>> On 7 September 2011 11:09, Justin Ko <jko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM, slavix <mikerin.sl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Is there any way to test model inheritance in spec?
>>>>
>>>> something like..
>>>> it { ChildModel.should < ParentModel }
>>>>
>>>> thanks.
>
>> Wouldn't this be an implementation bound spec?
>
> +1
>
> Test the behaviour, not the implementation. You could look at using a shared
> example group if you want to specify that the subclass shared behaviour with
> the superclass.
+1
It might not surprise you that I prefer to focus on behavior over
implementation (though it might surprise some people who think I like to mock
too much! ;)), however ...
-1
... there are absolutely valid cases for focusing on type. In rspec-rails, for
example, mock_models need to lie about their type to Rails' internals in order
for things to run smoothly. There are, therefore, examples like:
mock_model("User").should be_a(User)
Any sort of factory that might generate objects of different types in different
contexts would warrant this as well.
That said, I'll guess that @slavix's motivation here is that there are
ParentModel specs and he doesn't want to duplicate them for ChildModel. If
that's true, then a shared group is definitely a better option for a number of
reasons. The most obvious one is that ChildModel is free to override behavior
defined in ParentModel, so the fact that ChildModel < ParentModel is no
guarantee that they behave the same way.
HTH,
David
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
