daze wrote in post #970132: > On Dec 22, 9:45am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, that whole way of testing is wrongheaded and always was. You >> shouldn't be testing for implementation details like instance methods; >> rather, you should be testing for behavior. (Although I sometimes test >> for acts_as_list by making sure the appropriate module was included into >> the class.) >> >> Usually, if you're trying to poke into internals, something is wrong >> with your tests. The object being tested should generally be considered >> a black box. (BTW, consider RSpec instead of Shoulda. I believe even >> Shoulda's own developers have switched.) > > Okay - so what exactly should I do regarding testing the acts_as_list > gem?
As I said above, test behavior, or test that the one module (I think it's Acts::somethingorother) got included in the appropriate class. > > On Dec 22, 9:53am, David Kahn <[email protected]> wrote: >> From what I understand, Thoughtbot, the developers of Shoulda are using >> Rspec however are continuing to use and support the Shoulda helpers... as >> they make life easier than not using them. > > I will get rspec I guess. You can use rspec and shoulda together, > right? I'm not sure, but I don't understand why you'd want to. Shoulda is basically an RSpec knockoff. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
