On 19 Feb 2009, at 05:40, Stephen Eley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Without this syntax sugar, we still have to test
validates_presence_of to
make sure it's there and won't broken, right?
Wrong. You don't have to test validates_presence_of.
Wrong. You don't have to test validates_presence_of. What matters,
and therefore what you should test, is whether the model will complain
at you if a particular value is left empty.
...
If your spec breaks because you changed a method call, you're not
testing behavior any more. You're
Dave, you make a good point. In our system, where we are converting a
legacy database/application, we typically have no user stories and have
the technical (or you could argue user) requirement that the database
logic / constraints get converted. This is where we are typically just
encoding
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, while I used to be very anal and write should
have(1).error_on(:login) and such, I eventually realized that there's
no point. Checking on 'valid?' is entire and sufficient.
I think this depends on whether or
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
deliberately_out_of_context_to_make_a_point
If your spec breaks because you changed a method call, you're not
testing behavior any more. You're testing syntax.
/deliberately_out_of_context_to_make_a_point
We've got to stop
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark Wilden m...@mwilden.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
To make sure
Good point, that's actually I am debating with myself everyday and haven't
got a clear answer. This is classical calssic unit tester vs. mockist war.
:)
Talking about this case:
1. I haven't checked how should valite_presence_of is implemented, but it
could pretty much be checking if the value
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also, while I used to be very anal and write should
have(1).error_on(:login) and such, I eventually realized that there's
no point. Checking
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
But I did not write any code yet setting the message. Because I
haven't written any tests for the message. At this point I don't care
what the message is, just that I have the right data. I care about
the message when I
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
validates_presence_of happens to be the name of the method in
ActiveRecord that does that. But if you decide to write your own
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com wrote:
This is where this all gets tricky.
Yep. 8-
TDD (remember? that's where this all started) says you don't write any
subject code without a failing *unit test*. This is not about the end
result - it's about a
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Mark Wilden m...@mwilden.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
validates_presence_of happens to be the name of the method in
ActiveRecord that does
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's
already tested
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's
On 19/02/2009, at 11:39 , Fernando Perez wrote:
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's
already tested in the framework, and so readable that a quick glance
on
the model says it all.
Some people want the spec to stand as a contract, so you can then hand
the
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Alex Satrapa gr...@goldweb.com.au wrote:
On 19/02/2009, at 11:39 , Fernando Perez wrote:
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's
already tested in the framework, and so readable that a quick glance on
the model says it all.
Some
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's
On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's the point in testing
On 19/02/2009, at 13:02 , Zach Dennis wrote:
I have never seen or heard of anyone who writes a spec (developer
level RSpec spec), but not the code and then hands it over to someone
else and demands that that person implements it.
The fun begins when you can point out two or three conflicting
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Alex Satrapa gr...@goldweb.com.au wrote:
On 19/02/2009, at 13:02 , Zach Dennis wrote:
I have never seen or heard of anyone who writes a spec (developer
level RSpec spec), but not the code and then hands it over to someone
else and demands that that person
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
To make sure you wrote that line of code.
///ark
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Mark Wilden m...@mwilden.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Mark Wilden m...@mwilden.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for
On 19/02/2009, at 14:05 , David Chelimsky wrote:
Why not start w/ RSpec but do it right?
I made the mistake of showing the guy a spec from a previous project
and narrating (not showing) how the code was built from the spec. So
the manager didn't realise that the spec was built one line at
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Zach Dennis zach.den...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
We should write a test/spec, whatever you call it, *first* before you want
your code. But it doesn't mean one who writes the spec/test will use a
monkey coding the code to fix the test. To be realistic, a programmer will
write this test, and implement it right away. Just like how TDD should be
Pat, not nitpicking just using your eample, which was close, but you
missed one of the reasons we like shoulda type tests::
should_require_attributes :body, :message = /wtf/
makes you put
validates_presence_of :body, :message = hey dude, wtf, you need a body!
because we have a bunch of
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Without this syntax sugar, we still have to test validates_presence_of to
make sure it's there and won't broken, right?
Wrong. You don't have to test validates_presence_of. What matters,
and therefore what you should test,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Stephen Eley sfe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark Wilden m...@mwilden.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
To make sure
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
with rspec 1.1.12
But I got:
NO NAME
undefined method `valdate_presence_of' for
Sorry for the spam, I relized there was a typo. It should be
it {should validate_presence_of(:login)}
It still didn't work
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the spam, I relized there was a typo. It should be
it {should validate_presence_of(:login)}
It still didn't work
Scrolling up a bit ...
There are a few matcher libraries out there like
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
with rspec 1.1.12
But I got:
NO NAME
undefined method `valdate_presence_of' for
ah! sorry, my bad. Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the spam, I relized there was a typo. It should be
it {should validate_presence_of(:login)}
It still
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com wrote:
ah! sorry, my bad. Thanks!
No worries - I always just read the code first too :)
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Yi Wen hayafi...@gmail.com
36 matches
Mail list logo
