Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?
everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new project dont use it One thing is clear, mocha is much nicer than the integrated mocking, nicer syntax, better errormessages, better everything. The rspec mocking framework could never compete with mocha or flexmock on its own. At the time it was created there were good reasons for that, just like there are good reasons to deprecate it now. No one should be forced to migrate an old project over to new mocks, but thats not what we are talking about. Maybe you should just keep the built in mocking, but recommend mocha for new projects, and start using mocha for the samples and generated specs. I recognize that some people like flexmock better, but having one recommended framework would make it much easier for people to get started. (It will almost feel like mocha was built in :P) It really feels strange to hear these complains about rspec not having everything built in, because the main complain for me and others about rspec was always that its too big and has its own mocking that you have to use. (This is fixed now and rspec plays very nice with mocha, great) regards christoph On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I've talked this over w/ a couple of the other committers and we've decided that we will NOT be deprecating the mock framework, at least for the foreseeable future. If/when we do, it will happen with plenty of notice and a clear, painless (as much as is possible) upgrade path. To be clear: this decision is purely pragmatic. Benefits of the existing framework cited in this thread are significant (one-stop shop, generated specs for the rails plugin, etc). And the amount of work it would take to do it right (backwards compatibility, easy upgrade path, support for multiple external frameworks, etc) far exceeds the perceived cost of maintaining the existing framework. Cheers, David ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention
On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: If we come up with a programming language-independent way of representing specs, then I'm all for a .spec suffix. (Perhaps the specdoc descriptions might be something along those lines.) Good point. I did consider suggesting .rspec as an extention for that reason. Think I will stick to _spec.rb for now. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention
On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: C-hash I think you meant C-pound... http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/5_years_C-pound_experience.aspx ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ashley Moran wrote: On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: C-hash I think you meant C-pound... http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/5_years_C-pound_experience.aspx ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users No, #| (hash-pipe) #! (shebang) # aka ... octothorpe ... pound sign ... sharp ... number sign !!maxwellssilverhammer etc. ... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG3rxD8fKMegVjSM8RAuQWAKCBI7HxxpRpd5tTfHgv+0ovbIRXHACgklhE jTg8zGSBsT4zXNzGFEDUksY= =KITf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] response.should render_layout ....
Here's how I did it http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-May/001818.html linoj On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Ingo Weiss wrote: Hi, is there a way to assert in rspec that a template is rendered in a specific layout? Thanks! Ingo ___ 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
Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?
Lance Carlson wrote: If core was to deprecate the included mocking framework, then why would they favor mocha over flexmock? I agree we need to have some agreement as to which one to use, but why the favoritism? If my grandmother had wheels, would she be a skateboard? They're not deprecating it.. we don't need to choose which one we would potentially hypothetically someday choose. Jay ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
[rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders
False Positives
I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying
my first RSpec test, did this:
ob.should eql?('foo')
instead of:
ob.should eql('foo')
or:
ob.should == 'foo'
As far as I can see, this is roughly equivalent to:
ob.should false
Neither eql?('foo') nor false causes the spec to fail; this is worrisome, as
I can imagine accidentally including that ? again; and I'd hate it to mask a
test failure.
Autotest
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how to get autotest to pick up new
folders under spec/? Seems like I might have to modify rails_rspec.rb in
lib/autotest. We were considering separating our acceptance tests from the
rest.
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?
On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new project dont use it One thing is clear, mocha is much nicer than the integrated mocking, nicer syntax, better errormessages, better everything. The rspec mocking framework could never compete with mocha or flexmock on its own. At the time it was created there were good reasons for that, just like there are good reasons to deprecate it now. I would be 100% OK with this for version 1.1 or 1.2 or whatever, as long as Mocha was the only 'recommendation', and the rspec gem had a listed gem dependency on Mocha. It's the 'choice' I object to, not the specifics of which mock framework we happen to use. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?
On 9/5/07, Steven R. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilson Bilkovich wrote: On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new project dont use it One thing is clear, mocha is much nicer than the integrated mocking, nicer syntax, better errormessages, better everything. The rspec mocking framework could never compete with mocha or flexmock on its own. At the time it was created there were good reasons for that, just like there are good reasons to deprecate it now. I would be 100% OK with this for version 1.1 or 1.2 or whatever, as long as Mocha was the only 'recommendation', and the rspec gem had a listed gem dependency on Mocha. It's the 'choice' I object to, not the specifics of which mock framework we happen to use. To clarify, you just want a default mock framework, instead of being forced to make the decision yourself? Yep. Just so. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders
On 9/5/07, Geoffrey Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
False Positives
I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying
my first RSpec test, did this:
ob.should eql?('foo')
instead of:
ob.should eql('foo')
or:
ob.should == 'foo'
As far as I can see, this is roughly equivalent to:
ob.should false
Neither eql?('foo') nor false causes the spec to fail; this is worrisome, as
I can imagine accidentally including that ? again; and I'd hate it to mask a
test failure.
Please report bugs to http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
Autotest
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how to get autotest to pick up new
folders under spec/? Seems like I might have to modify rails_rspec.rb in
lib/autotest. We were considering separating our acceptance tests from the
rest.
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
___
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
Re: [rspec-users] Caveman Questions
On 9/5/07, sudara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
I'm just a caveman with some caveman questions.
I've been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I'm writing my first series
of specs. My initial impressions are Verbose, but understandable. Helpful
and intuitive, but so much to digest. I want to congratulate the folks who
are dedicating a chunk of their lives to writing this, and ask 2 caveman
questions
My first is Why lambda in rpsec? It doesn't strike me as reads like
english or easily understandable. I understand it's place in ruby (um,
kind of :), but my thinking is:
lambda { do_something_risky }.should raise_error
would be more understandable (and fun!) written as:
running { something_risky }.should raise_error
That's a great idea. Why don't you add it to the tracker:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
My second question is: For those folks who are getting up to speed with ruby
and rails AND digesting rspec along the way, there is a lot of incoming DSL.
As I started with rails before rspec, I found myself using script/console to
check my code, poking at different ways of expressing myself with ruby.
Is there a way to poke at my specs? I can load up my test environment, but
can I spec things live so that I can find out what works and what doesn't?
I find I'm wasting a chunk of time (as I don't have the DSL even 60% down)
writing specs and getting it wrong. Am I missing a trick, or I.should_have
dsl_down_before_trying.else_return(crying)?
irb(main):001:0 require 'rubygems'
= true
irb(main):002:0 require 'spec'
= true
irb(main):003:0 include Spec::Matchers
= Object
irb(main):004:0 5.should == 5
= nil
irb(main):005:0 5.should be 4
Spec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError: expected 4, got 5
Cheers,
David
um, thanks for any potential caveman responses - the more caveman
(pragmatic) the better.
sudara
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Caveman-Questions-tf4384357.html#a12498949
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.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
