On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM, James Cox <ja...@imaj.es> wrote: > Yeah, I love pending too. but it doesn't help me get a sense of the > state of a suite before I start. now it's part of my practice to go in > and find out how much is commented out. > > David, > > three concerns with pending as an option: > > a. it won't help the people who think it's ok to comment out whole > tests. If you make that choice it's not a good thing (™). I don't > think there's enough evangelism in the world to change them.
Those same people will work around whatever we make available to help them. > b. how do you distinguish between a pending and a broken-but-fixing > test? one means, "i've got no coverage here, and i haven't thought > about it' whereas the other says, 'i used to have coverage, and i need > to fix it'. I know it's semantics, but that's important here: i need > to know where no effort for testing has been made vs where testing > existed (which may imply some domain knowledge which was at one point > true). What Chris Flipse said. > c. if you see # it 'should …' or similar, that's a commented test, not > a test comment. This metric is always going to be loose… but it may > give an indication, a sniff test. some kind of idea of what the state > of a test is. It's the same as running rake stats - you and I know > it's a bullshit metric (it can't possibly tell me how good the tests > are), but it tells me at least if any effort to test has happened. > Then, I run coverage and figure out how exercised the code is.. > somewhere along that line, it'd be good to know if there used to be > tests but they are commented out. "it" is an alias for example, specify, and pending (among others), so we'd have to parse for all of those. > an anecdote… i experienced this recently with a project, and a > significant majority of the tests were just commented out. They used > to work, and a lot of it modeled the domain reasonably well - but > either due to a breaking gem upgrade or a refactor or something - the > original dev just didn't move/fix the test. So, on the face of it, the > test scenario looked horrible, but in the end, for the key components, > fixing the tests wasn't that painful. Regardless, I got a pretty fast > sense of how much water he was treading at the time (or, how much he > was under it :/) > > so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer, > which would act the same but output different info. You can actually do that! RSpec.configuration do |c| c.alias_example_to :broken, :pending => "Broken" end See http://rubydoc.info/gems/rspec-core/RSpec/Core/ExampleGroup.alias_example_to and https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/lib/rspec/core/example_group.rb#L69-104 HTH, David > > -james > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I haven't posted in a while, but I want to say that as someone who spends a >> significant portion of his time teaching (T/B)DD I am totally in love with >> pending specs. There are analogous concepts in nearly every xUnit/xSpec, but >> pending is by far the best. Kudos. >> >> On Jul 23, 2012 9:57 PM, "David Chelimsky" <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM, James Cox <ja...@imaj.es> wrote: >>> > Hey, >>> > >>> > in a bunch of the rescues i've recently done, I see a pretty big anti >>> > pattern: tests don't work, and so rather than making them work, the >>> > dev team just comments them out till 'later'. >>> > >>> > Does anyone think it'd be useful/interesting to get a flag for rspec >>> > which would compare lines vs lines-commented, and if the percentage >>> > was higher than xx, it'd issue some kind of warning? >>> >>> The pending feature is designed to help with this problem by allowing >>> you to disable an example while still keeping it visible. >>> >>> If we were to do what you propose, we'd need to offer an opt-out >>> and/or the ability to configure the percentage. Consider a suite that >>> uses a lot of comments to annotate the specs. The problem with making >>> it configurable is that the folks who's priorities lead them to >>> comment out examples instead of fixing them will likely just disable >>> this feature. >>> >>> I'd say, let's encourage people to use 'pending' correctly. WDYT? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > -- > James Cox, > Consultant, Raconteur, Photographer, Entrepreneur > t: +1 347 433 0567 e: ja...@imaj.es w: http://imaj.es/ > talk: http://twitter.com/imajes photos: http://500px.com/imajes > _______________________________________________ > 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
