Along the same lines as the default javascript library discussion [1], why don''t we switch the default test library to RSpec? The stats [2] posted by Xaviar in the other thread seem to support that RSpec is the preferred way to test. [1] http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/e9b9cf2233d9a59b [2] http://survey.hamptoncatlin.com/survey/stats -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Just for endorsing the stats, I''m one of those Rspec users :) Rodrigo. Em 14-06-2010 14:26, Allen escreveu:> Along the same lines as the default javascript library discussion [1], > why don''t we switch the default test library to RSpec? The stats [2] > posted by Xaviar in the other thread seem to support that RSpec is the > preferred way to test. > > [1] http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/e9b9cf2233d9a59b > [2] http://survey.hamptoncatlin.com/survey/stats > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
So am I. And every client project I''ve worked on for the past three years has used RSpec, whether that''s been my choice or not. More often not. On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:> Just for endorsing the stats, I''m one of those Rspec users :) > > Rodrigo. > > Em 14-06-2010 14:26, Allen escreveu: >> >> Along the same lines as the default javascript library discussion [1], >> why don''t we switch the default test library to RSpec? The stats [2] >> posted by Xaviar in the other thread seem to support that RSpec is the >> preferred way to test. >> >> [1] >> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/e9b9cf2233d9a59b >> [2] http://survey.hamptoncatlin.com/survey/stats >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > >-- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick Twitter: @RickDeNatale WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Also along the same lines as the JS discussion, I think this is a good thing to talk about for 3.1. Let''s let the core team focus on getting 3.0 out the gate first, they''re too close to a release to get bogged down in an issue that will surely arouse a lot of impassioned opinions. -Norman On Jun 14, 2010 2:05 PM, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote: So am I. And every client project I''ve worked on for the past three years has used RSpec, whether that''s been my choice or not. More often not. On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:> Just for end...-- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick Twitter: @RickDeNatale WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core"... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Even Shoulda is switching focus to RSpec [1]. [1] http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/701863189/shoulda-rails3-and-beyond On Jun 14, 2:29 pm, Norman Clarke <nor...@njclarke.com> wrote:> Also along the same lines as the JS discussion, I think this is a good thing > to talk about for 3.1. Let''s let the core team focus on getting 3.0 out the > gate first, they''re too close to a release to get bogged down in an issue > that will surely arouse a lot of impassioned opinions. > > -Norman > > On Jun 14, 2010 2:05 PM, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So am I. > > And every client project I''ve worked on for the past three years has > used RSpec, whether that''s been my choice or not. More often not. > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas<rr.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just for end... > > -- > Rick DeNatale > > Blog:http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ > Github:http://github.com/rubyredrick > Twitter: @RickDeNatale > WWR:http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale > LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core"...-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
I am one of the majority who prefer RSpec over Test::Unit.
I''ve been using RSpec since June 2007 and I''ve definitely
grown familiar
with it and prefer its syntax. I definitely prefer RSpec''s way of
running a
single test: spec <file>:<line>.
I can see 2 major concerns that will be raised during this debate.
1) "It''s already working, why change it?" - I think this has
been answered
already: The community prefers RSpec. The Rails tests were written in
Test::Unit because that''s all there was. Now there''s a
multitude of
frameworks out there and it just so happens that RSpec appears to be the
favourite. By using RSpec, you''re lowering the barrier of entry to
those who
have only ever used RSpec *and* RSpec''s syntax
(@some.complex.thing.should
eql(2)) is not as ambiguous as Test::Unit''s assert_equal, which is
backwards
imo. Sure, syntax is just details, but details are important.
I can''t point out any particular massive SVN-to-Git-like changes the
switch
to RSpec would bring, but this is probably something other people can bring
up and point out. I can think of two though: easier-to-understand output and
proper Hash diffing ("hash1 contains key ''blah'', hash2
doesn''t", rather than
a diff which was not made for Hashes, but Strings).
2) "It''ll be a mammoth effort to switch over!" - To those who
raise this
point: if you don''t want to help, then don''t. I''m
sure if there were enough
people working on converting the tests over to RSpec then it won''t be a
problem for you personally. You''ll just have to learn something new (if
you
didn''t know RSpec already). If your adverse to that then you probably
shouldn''t be doing web dev.
I am all for this change over, but unfortunately I do not have the time to
assist on any meaningful scale above (pun alert!) "spectator". I think
what''ll need to happen is that a group of *dedicated* people will need
to
work together on converting this over after the core''s
"blessing". I think
that Yehuda would be for it, but to convince the other Higher Ups may prove
troublesome. Careful of their fragile egos. I must mention again that this
won''t take a day. A week. It''s probably something more like a
month of
medium-to-hard work, head-scratching and omgwtf''ing. Be prepared.
People prefer RSpec, and I think Test::Unit''s time is up.
It''s time for a change.
--
Ryan Bigg / Radar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
I think the discussion was actually about changing the default test library used by generators in Rails applications, not the test framework that Rails itself uses. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 20:40, Ryan Bigg <radarlistener@gmail.com> wrote:> I am one of the majority who prefer RSpec over Test::Unit. > I''ve been using RSpec since June 2007 and I''ve definitely grown familiar > with it and prefer its syntax. I definitely prefer RSpec''s way of running a > single test: spec <file>:<line>. > I can see 2 major concerns that will be raised during this debate. > 1) "It''s already working, why change it?" - I think this has been answered > already: The community prefers RSpec. The Rails tests were written in > Test::Unit because that''s all there was. Now there''s a multitude of > frameworks out there and it just so happens that RSpec appears to be the > favourite. By using RSpec, you''re lowering the barrier of entry to those who > have only ever used RSpec *and* RSpec''s syntax (@some.complex.thing.should > eql(2)) is not as ambiguous as Test::Unit''s assert_equal, which is backwards > imo. Sure, syntax is just details, but details are important. > I can''t point out any particular massive SVN-to-Git-like changes the switch > to RSpec would bring, but this is probably something other people can bring > up and point out. I can think of two though: easier-to-understand output and > proper Hash diffing ("hash1 contains key ''blah'', hash2 doesn''t", rather than > a diff which was not made for Hashes, but Strings). > > 2) "It''ll be a mammoth effort to switch over!" - To those who raise this > point: if you don''t want to help, then don''t. I''m sure if there were enough > people working on converting the tests over to RSpec then it won''t be a > problem for you personally. You''ll just have to learn something new (if you > didn''t know RSpec already). If your adverse to that then you probably > shouldn''t be doing web dev. > I am all for this change over, but unfortunately I do not have the time to > assist on any meaningful scale above (pun alert!) "spectator". I think > what''ll need to happen is that a group of *dedicated* people will need to > work together on converting this over after the core''s "blessing". I think > that Yehuda would be for it, but to convince the other Higher Ups may prove > troublesome. Careful of their fragile egos. I must mention again that this > won''t take a day. A week. It''s probably something more like a month of > medium-to-hard work, head-scratching and omgwtf''ing. Be prepared. > People prefer RSpec, and I think Test::Unit''s time is up. > It''s time for a change. > > -- > Ryan Bigg / Radar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Bah. This is what I get for reading emails too early in the morning. Switching over to using RSpec is such an easy task now with Rails 3 that the thought didn''t occur that that''s what this was about. The steps are (I assume a bare-bones app): rm -rf test Add gem ''rspec'', 2.0.0.beta11'' to the Gemfile bundle install rails g rspec:install omg done. Still, my comments make some sense right? Just in a different, not-yet-existing context. On 18 June 2010 10:02, Norman Clarke <norman@njclarke.com> wrote:> I think the discussion was actually about changing the default test > library used by generators in Rails applications, not the test > framework that Rails itself uses. > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 20:40, Ryan Bigg <radarlistener@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am one of the majority who prefer RSpec over Test::Unit. > > I''ve been using RSpec since June 2007 and I''ve definitely grown familiar > > with it and prefer its syntax. I definitely prefer RSpec''s way of running > a > > single test: spec <file>:<line>. > > I can see 2 major concerns that will be raised during this debate. > > 1) "It''s already working, why change it?" - I think this has been > answered > > already: The community prefers RSpec. The Rails tests were written in > > Test::Unit because that''s all there was. Now there''s a multitude of > > frameworks out there and it just so happens that RSpec appears to be the > > favourite. By using RSpec, you''re lowering the barrier of entry to those > who > > have only ever used RSpec *and* RSpec''s syntax > (@some.complex.thing.should > > eql(2)) is not as ambiguous as Test::Unit''s assert_equal, which is > backwards > > imo. Sure, syntax is just details, but details are important. > > I can''t point out any particular massive SVN-to-Git-like changes the > switch > > to RSpec would bring, but this is probably something other people can > bring > > up and point out. I can think of two though: easier-to-understand output > and > > proper Hash diffing ("hash1 contains key ''blah'', hash2 doesn''t", rather > than > > a diff which was not made for Hashes, but Strings). > > > > 2) "It''ll be a mammoth effort to switch over!" - To those who raise this > > point: if you don''t want to help, then don''t. I''m sure if there were > enough > > people working on converting the tests over to RSpec then it won''t be a > > problem for you personally. You''ll just have to learn something new (if > you > > didn''t know RSpec already). If your adverse to that then you probably > > shouldn''t be doing web dev. > > I am all for this change over, but unfortunately I do not have the time > to > > assist on any meaningful scale above (pun alert!) "spectator". I think > > what''ll need to happen is that a group of *dedicated* people will need to > > work together on converting this over after the core''s "blessing". I > think > > that Yehuda would be for it, but to convince the other Higher Ups may > prove > > troublesome. Careful of their fragile egos. I must mention again that > this > > won''t take a day. A week. It''s probably something more like a month of > > medium-to-hard work, head-scratching and omgwtf''ing. Be prepared. > > People prefer RSpec, and I think Test::Unit''s time is up. > > It''s time for a change. > > > > -- > > Ryan Bigg / Radar > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > >-- Ryan Bigg / Radar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 21:06, Ryan Bigg <radarlistener@gmail.com> wrote:> Bah. This is what I get for reading emails too early in the morning. > Switching over to using RSpec is such an easy task now with Rails 3 that the > thought didn''t occur that that''s what this was about. The steps are (I > assume a bare-bones app): > rm -rf test > Add gem ''rspec'', 2.0.0.beta11'' to the Gemfile > bundle install > rails g rspec:install > omg done. > Still, my comments make some sense right? Just in a different, > not-yet-existing context.For sure - definitely an idea worth considering and discussing.> On 18 June 2010 10:02, Norman Clarke <norman@njclarke.com> wrote: >> >> I think the discussion was actually about changing the default test >> library used by generators in Rails applications, not the test >> framework that Rails itself uses. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 20:40, Ryan Bigg <radarlistener@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I am one of the majority who prefer RSpec over Test::Unit. >> > I''ve been using RSpec since June 2007 and I''ve definitely grown familiar >> > with it and prefer its syntax. I definitely prefer RSpec''s way of >> > running a >> > single test: spec <file>:<line>. >> > I can see 2 major concerns that will be raised during this debate. >> > 1) "It''s already working, why change it?" - I think this has been >> > answered >> > already: The community prefers RSpec. The Rails tests were written in >> > Test::Unit because that''s all there was. Now there''s a multitude of >> > frameworks out there and it just so happens that RSpec appears to be the >> > favourite. By using RSpec, you''re lowering the barrier of entry to those >> > who >> > have only ever used RSpec *and* RSpec''s syntax >> > (@some.complex.thing.should >> > eql(2)) is not as ambiguous as Test::Unit''s assert_equal, which is >> > backwards >> > imo. Sure, syntax is just details, but details are important. >> > I can''t point out any particular massive SVN-to-Git-like changes the >> > switch >> > to RSpec would bring, but this is probably something other people can >> > bring >> > up and point out. I can think of two though: easier-to-understand output >> > and >> > proper Hash diffing ("hash1 contains key ''blah'', hash2 doesn''t", rather >> > than >> > a diff which was not made for Hashes, but Strings). >> > >> > 2) "It''ll be a mammoth effort to switch over!" - To those who raise this >> > point: if you don''t want to help, then don''t. I''m sure if there were >> > enough >> > people working on converting the tests over to RSpec then it won''t be a >> > problem for you personally. You''ll just have to learn something new (if >> > you >> > didn''t know RSpec already). If your adverse to that then you probably >> > shouldn''t be doing web dev. >> > I am all for this change over, but unfortunately I do not have the time >> > to >> > assist on any meaningful scale above (pun alert!) "spectator". I think >> > what''ll need to happen is that a group of *dedicated* people will need >> > to >> > work together on converting this over after the core''s "blessing". I >> > think >> > that Yehuda would be for it, but to convince the other Higher Ups may >> > prove >> > troublesome. Careful of their fragile egos. I must mention again that >> > this >> > won''t take a day. A week. It''s probably something more like a month of >> > medium-to-hard work, head-scratching and omgwtf''ing. Be prepared. >> > People prefer RSpec, and I think Test::Unit''s time is up. >> > It''s time for a change. >> > >> > -- >> > Ryan Bigg / Radar >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups >> > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit this group at >> > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. >> > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. >> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Ryan Bigg / Radar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Reasonably Related Threads
- Possible to ask rspec to show more code in the debugger?
- Anyone using the rspec textmate bundle with Ruby 1.9.1
- Problems running features with Textmate Cucumber bundle
- Named routes problem... more rails than rspec
- difference between validate and validate_on_create