Hello,
Is there any way to test model inheritance in spec?
something like..
it { ChildModel.should < ParentModel }
thanks.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM, slavix <mikerin.slava at gmail.com> wrote:> Hello, > Is there any way to test model inheritance in spec? > > something like.. > it { ChildModel.should < ParentModel } > > thanks. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >specify { ChildModel.should be < ParentModel } -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110906/6e1eca2b/attachment.html>
Wouldn''t this be an implementation bound spec? Best, Sidu. http://c42.in On 7 September 2011 11:09, Justin Ko <jko170 at gmail.com> wrote:> > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM, slavix <mikerin.slava at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> Is there any way to test model inheritance in spec? >> >> something like.. >> ?it { ChildModel.should < ParentModel } >> >> thanks. >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > specify { ChildModel.should be < ParentModel } > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On 7 Sep 2011, at 07:53, Sidu Ponnappa wrote:> > On 7 September 2011 11:09, Justin Ko <jko170 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM, slavix <mikerin.slava at 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. -- Freelance programmer & coach Author, http://pragprog.com/book/hwcuc/the-cucumber-book (with Aslak Helles?y) Founder, http://relishapp.com +44(0)7974430184 | http://twitter.com/mattwynne
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 <jko170 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM, slavix <mikerin.slava at 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