I have a confession to make. I still only "dabble" at doing tests for my Rails apps. Well, more than dabble, but not full blown TDD. A year ago, rspec seemed to be taking over the planet with a tsunami of "rails space" being devoted to it on blogs and elsewhere. I read about and watched webcasts a''plenty about rspec, but somehow I just can''t seem to get over the (seemingly) rather large hump of doing enough of it to get good enough at it that it doesn''t completely kill my productivity. I''m wondering, are there a fair number of you out there who tried rspec, and gave it a really good go, and then wound up going back to a smaller amount of testing using Test::Unit? I keep telling myself I need to take another run at this thing, but I want to be sure it wasn''t another one of those short-lived software "fads" that everyone touted just because the "cool kids" were saying it was the way to go. I''m convinced that testing is good, and that a proper amount of it makes a world of difference in the stability and maintainability of an app...I''m just not sure that a full boat rspec implementation isn''t too much of a good thing. What''s the general opinion out there on this now that some time has passed and more people have had a chance to witness the practicality (or lack there-of) of doing a full boat rspec TDD approach to Rails development? thanks, jp -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
We''re using rspec in our company since october 2007 and by now there''s no idea of going back to Test::Unit. It''s just nice and gives tests better readability and allows to keep tests simple with mocking away things that are not important or difficult to setup for the current test. Independent of the testing method: Tests don''t kill you productivity. At leastif you develop real world software you must test. It''s the only reasonable way to keep your project stable if you have to make changes later on. Think you have a small shop, everything works fine and six months later your customer wants you to implement product categories, which will change 1/2 of your code. Without tests you''ll get a medium panic, especially if you haven''t worked on the code in that time. Even without that: Write tests first, then run your code against it. This gives you a much better overview, what you''ll have to implement and if your design meets the requirements. (Just checked: The code/test ration of our projects is 1:1 or better.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Jeff Pritchard wrote:> and watched webcasts a''plenty about rspec, but somehow I just can''t seem > to get over the (seemingly) rather large hump of doing enough of it to > get good enough at it that it doesn''t completely kill my productivity. >Hi Jeff, I feel your pain. I''m a one-man, contract programmer and get paid by the hour. I really dig the idea of BDD, and used it for a bit while creating models (not a very agile approach, though...I knew I needed a boatload of models and created them up front). But when I got to controllers, I couldn''t wrap my head around mocking and stubbing and was starting to spend a lot of time reading and experimenting, only to fail again and get frustrated. While my "boss" is a pretty understanding guy, it''s hard to convince him that not seeing any real code in two weeks is a good use of his resources. As you put it, my productivity got killed. I tried to justify it with "it''s slower on the front side, but really helps later down the road", which is true. But when he wants to get this project done in 6 months, I don''t have the luxury of taking the first 5 to write tests. I understand that a lot of code is really being written along the way, but right now it''s just not clicking well enough in my head to keep pushing forward with it. I intend to come back to it some day, because I do think it is the right way to go about it. To Thorsten''s point about testing not killing our productivity: I would agree with that. What kills our productivity is the learning curve of testing. It''s like someone said in another thread about choosing Rails for a new project: If the project has to be done soon, the learning curve of Rails might jeopardize the timeline. The same can be said of testing. If you already know how to test, by all means test, test, test! But if you have to climb the learning hill to test, be prepared to have your "productivity" dramatically reduced. Peace, Phillip -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
A side note: there''s no reason you can''t do full on TDD/TFD but with Test::Unit and not RSpec (i personally don''t particularly like rspec) Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Phillip Koebbe wrote:> Jeff Pritchard wrote: >> and watched webcasts a''plenty about rspec, but somehow I just can''t seem >> to get over the (seemingly) rather large hump of doing enough of it to >> get good enough at it that it doesn''t completely kill my productivity. >> > > Hi Jeff, > > I feel your pain. I''m a one-man, contract programmer and get paid by the > hour. > Peace, > PhillipMe too. One man shop. Don''t feel like I can charge the client for my learning curve on rspec. This old dog took to Rails like a Golden Retriever to water...but with rspec I feel more like a cat. jp -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Frederick Cheung wrote:> A side note: there''s no reason you can''t do full on TDD/TFD but with > Test::Unit and not RSpec (i personally don''t particularly like rspec) > > FredGlad to hear I''m not alone. I kept watching the screencast and thinking "Oh, I get it". Then I would go and try to do it and I would type "it should......hmmmmn I know what it should, but I don''t know how to write it....let''s try again.....it should.....work right?.....idunno" It just doesn''t seem like I''ve hit that golden moment where the light bulb comes on and it starts to click. Now I''ve been away from it long enough I''ll have to basically start from scratch if I try again. jp -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> > To Thorsten''s point about testing not killing our productivity: I would > agree with that. What kills our productivity is the learning curve of > testing. It''s like someone said in another thread about choosing Rails > for a new project: If the project has to be done soon, the learning > curve of Rails might jeopardize the timeline. The same can be said of > testing. If you already know how to test, by all means test, test, test! > But if you have to climb the learning hill to test, be prepared to have > your "productivity" dramatically reduced. >True of course, especially if you work alone. We''re two programmers doing mainly Rails here (and one doing PHP, HTML, CSS and a smaller amount of Rails) and we already had enough testing experience with Test::Unit. So jumping from Unit to rspec was done in a week, while working on new projects. The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i guess. What takes time is the "What and how to test?" And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if you work in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and not everybody may be aware of every relation one model has to another or other dependencies in the code. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thorsten Mueller wrote:> > The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i guess. > What > takes time is the "What and how to test?" >You just hit the proverbial nail on its head.> And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if you work > in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and not > everybody > may be aware of every relation one model has to another or other > dependencies in the code.I fully agree with the importance of testing, even for one-man shops. I was first introduced to the test-first approach about a year ago. As with many people, it was a complete reversal of everything I''d ever learned or done. Kind of like agile development: all of my development life, I had always been a part of something that used the waterfall method. We had to have complete specifications before a single line of code could be written, and the specs had to be signed off by half the people in the company. The QA team didn''t see the application until many months later, and every test plan had to be redone with every simple change that affected it. After years and years of this, it''s difficult to adjust to new ways of doing things. My biggest adjustment has been being self-employed. Then, of course, there''s Rails. And trying to be more agile. And here''s this testing-first idea. I won''t mention source control ;) It''s been more than enough to make my head spin at times. But, step by step, I''m getting there. I''m becoming more competent in Rails. I''m slowly shedding the obesity of waterfall and becoming a bit more agile. I''ve at least broached the testing subject. And I''m using source control, though not as frequently as I should. Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? Peace, Phillip -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I''m at the same point as some of you on this thread. I''m a freelancer that really wants to get into BDD with rpsec (and be one of the cool kids ;) but I always find myself stuck in neutral. >> Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? Have you seen shoulda? http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda It allows for rspec like testing but sits on top of Test::Unit without affecting your existing tests (I haven''t used test/spec but I believe it works this way too). I''m using shoulda to slowly work in the whole "should do something" approach. best. mike On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Phillip Koebbe wrote:> > Thorsten Mueller wrote: >> >> The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i guess. >> What >> takes time is the "What and how to test?" >> > > You just hit the proverbial nail on its head. > >> And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if you work >> in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and not >> everybody >> may be aware of every relation one model has to another or other >> dependencies in the code. > > I fully agree with the importance of testing, even for one-man > shops. I > was first introduced to the test-first approach about a year ago. As > with many people, it was a complete reversal of everything I''d ever > learned or done. Kind of like agile development: all of my development > life, I had always been a part of something that used the waterfall > method. We had to have complete specifications before a single line of > code could be written, and the specs had to be signed off by half the > people in the company. The QA team didn''t see the application until > many > months later, and every test plan had to be redone with every simple > change that affected it. After years and years of this, it''s > difficult > to adjust to new ways of doing things. My biggest adjustment has been > being self-employed. Then, of course, there''s Rails. And trying to be > more agile. And here''s this testing-first idea. I won''t mention source > control ;) > > It''s been more than enough to make my head spin at times. But, step by > step, I''m getting there. I''m becoming more competent in Rails. I''m > slowly shedding the obesity of waterfall and becoming a bit more > agile. > I''ve at least broached the testing subject. And I''m using source > control, though not as frequently as I should. > > Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > Peace, > Phillip > -- > 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Michael Breen wrote:> > Have you seen shoulda? http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda > > It allows for rspec like testing but sits on top of Test::Unit without > affecting your existing tests (I haven''t used test/spec but I believe > it works this way too). I''m using shoulda to slowly work in the whole > "should do something" approach. > > best. > mikeThanks Mike, this looks interesting. One potential downside is that clients want to hear buzz words like "rspec". If this is relatively unknown by comparison, it sorta doesn''t count when woo''ing a prospective client. jp -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
The biggest problems I am seeing are: 1) The lack of instructional material. 2) The total absence of instructional material that isn''t a year old. 3) The total arrogant disregard by the rspec community of people that are part of their "in the know" clique. I joined the rspec user group and politely asked for assistance in finding learning materials and my request was completely ignored. That has never happen in the Rails or the Ruby groups. even when I asked really stupid questions. I think rspec looks very promising, especially considering the limited debugging facilities in Rails, but learning it is like pulling teeth and core team doesn''t seem to want to share. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Ruby Freak wrote:> I think rspec looks very promising, especially considering the limited > debugging facilities in Rails, but learning it is like pulling teeth > and core team doesn''t seem to want to share.Agreed on the documentation. To be honest I''ve always felt that way about Rails docs too. Have you seen the rspec screen casts at RailsCasts.com and PeepCode.com? It''s a start. jp -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
As an Rspec user, I have to say that Shoulda is _not_ Rspec-like testing really. They resemble each other more in syntax but you''re still stuck in the world of Test::Unit. I miss my view specs, I miss my testing in isolation, I miss my Rspec. RSL On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Michael Breen <hardbap-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I''m at the same point as some of you on this thread. I''m a freelancer > that really wants to get into BDD with rpsec (and be one of the cool > kids ;) but I always find myself stuck in neutral. > > >> Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > Have you seen shoulda? http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda > > It allows for rspec like testing but sits on top of Test::Unit without > affecting your existing tests (I haven''t used test/spec but I believe > it works this way too). I''m using shoulda to slowly work in the whole > "should do something" approach. > > best. > mike > > > On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Phillip Koebbe wrote: > > > > > Thorsten Mueller wrote: > >> > >> The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i guess. > >> What > >> takes time is the "What and how to test?" > >> > > > > You just hit the proverbial nail on its head. > > > >> And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if you work > >> in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and not > >> everybody > >> may be aware of every relation one model has to another or other > >> dependencies in the code. > > > > I fully agree with the importance of testing, even for one-man > > shops. I > > was first introduced to the test-first approach about a year ago. As > > with many people, it was a complete reversal of everything I''d ever > > learned or done. Kind of like agile development: all of my development > > life, I had always been a part of something that used the waterfall > > method. We had to have complete specifications before a single line of > > code could be written, and the specs had to be signed off by half the > > people in the company. The QA team didn''t see the application until > > many > > months later, and every test plan had to be redone with every simple > > change that affected it. After years and years of this, it''s > > difficult > > to adjust to new ways of doing things. My biggest adjustment has been > > being self-employed. Then, of course, there''s Rails. And trying to be > > more agile. And here''s this testing-first idea. I won''t mention source > > control ;) > > > > It''s been more than enough to make my head spin at times. But, step by > > step, I''m getting there. I''m becoming more competent in Rails. I''m > > slowly shedding the obesity of waterfall and becoming a bit more > > agile. > > I''ve at least broached the testing subject. And I''m using source > > control, though not as frequently as I should. > > > > Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > > > Peace, > > Phillip > > -- > > 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
That is correct, shoulda only gives you "Rspec-like" syntax on top of Test::Unit. best. mike On Jun 19, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Russell Norris wrote:> As an Rspec user, I have to say that Shoulda is _not_ Rspec-like > testing really. They resemble each other more in syntax but you''re > still stuck in the world of Test::Unit. I miss my view specs, I miss > my testing in isolation, I miss my Rspec. > > RSL > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Michael Breen <hardbap-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > > I''m at the same point as some of you on this thread. I''m a freelancer > that really wants to get into BDD with rpsec (and be one of the cool > kids ;) but I always find myself stuck in neutral. > > >> Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > Have you seen shoulda? http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda > > It allows for rspec like testing but sits on top of Test::Unit without > affecting your existing tests (I haven''t used test/spec but I believe > it works this way too). I''m using shoulda to slowly work in the whole > "should do something" approach. > > best. > mike > > > On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Phillip Koebbe wrote: > > > > > Thorsten Mueller wrote: > >> > >> The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i guess. > >> What > >> takes time is the "What and how to test?" > >> > > > > You just hit the proverbial nail on its head. > > > >> And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if you > work > >> in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and not > >> everybody > >> may be aware of every relation one model has to another or other > >> dependencies in the code. > > > > I fully agree with the importance of testing, even for one-man > > shops. I > > was first introduced to the test-first approach about a year ago. As > > with many people, it was a complete reversal of everything I''d ever > > learned or done. Kind of like agile development: all of my > development > > life, I had always been a part of something that used the waterfall > > method. We had to have complete specifications before a single > line of > > code could be written, and the specs had to be signed off by half > the > > people in the company. The QA team didn''t see the application until > > many > > months later, and every test plan had to be redone with every simple > > change that affected it. After years and years of this, it''s > > difficult > > to adjust to new ways of doing things. My biggest adjustment has > been > > being self-employed. Then, of course, there''s Rails. And trying to > be > > more agile. And here''s this testing-first idea. I won''t mention > source > > control ;) > > > > It''s been more than enough to make my head spin at times. But, > step by > > step, I''m getting there. I''m becoming more competent in Rails. I''m > > slowly shedding the obesity of waterfall and becoming a bit more > > agile. > > I''ve at least broached the testing subject. And I''m using source > > control, though not as frequently as I should. > > > > Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > > > Peace, > > Phillip > > -- > > 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Jun 19, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Russell Norris wrote:> As an Rspec user, I have to say that Shoulda is _not_ Rspec-like > testing really. They resemble each other more in syntax but you''re > still stuck in the world of Test::Unit. I miss my view specs, I miss > my testing in isolation, I miss my Rspec.Do you maintain specs for your routes also? This is one of the things that overwhelmed me when using rpsec. Also, do you spec all your views? I could see writing specs for tricky parts. Thanks. Mike> > > RSL > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Michael Breen <hardbap-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > > I''m at the same point as some of you on this thread. I''m a freelancer > that really wants to get into BDD with rpsec (and be one of the cool > kids ;) but I always find myself stuck in neutral. > > >> Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > Have you seen shoulda? http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda > > It allows for rspec like testing but sits on top of Test::Unit without > affecting your existing tests (I haven''t used test/spec but I believe > it works this way too). I''m using shoulda to slowly work in the whole > "should do something" approach. > > best. > mike > > > On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Phillip Koebbe wrote: > > > > > Thorsten Mueller wrote: > >> > >> The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i guess. > >> What > >> takes time is the "What and how to test?" > >> > > > > You just hit the proverbial nail on its head. > > > >> And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if you > work > >> in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and not > >> everybody > >> may be aware of every relation one model has to another or other > >> dependencies in the code. > > > > I fully agree with the importance of testing, even for one-man > > shops. I > > was first introduced to the test-first approach about a year ago. As > > with many people, it was a complete reversal of everything I''d ever > > learned or done. Kind of like agile development: all of my > development > > life, I had always been a part of something that used the waterfall > > method. We had to have complete specifications before a single > line of > > code could be written, and the specs had to be signed off by half > the > > people in the company. The QA team didn''t see the application until > > many > > months later, and every test plan had to be redone with every simple > > change that affected it. After years and years of this, it''s > > difficult > > to adjust to new ways of doing things. My biggest adjustment has > been > > being self-employed. Then, of course, there''s Rails. And trying to > be > > more agile. And here''s this testing-first idea. I won''t mention > source > > control ;) > > > > It''s been more than enough to make my head spin at times. But, > step by > > step, I''m getting there. I''m becoming more competent in Rails. I''m > > slowly shedding the obesity of waterfall and becoming a bit more > > agile. > > I''ve at least broached the testing subject. And I''m using source > > control, though not as frequently as I should. > > > > Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps? > > > > Peace, > > Phillip > > -- > > 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
i do not maintain routing specs. they always seem to me to be little more
than assertions that you correctly understand how the routing works. i do
spec my views and i''ve learned to spec them very non-brittle-ly. i spec
that
templates have forms and where those forms submit to [or if they call
form_for, for those forms that use form_for @foo to the utmost DRY
potential] as well as that they have sufficient form elements to generate
specific params [like params[:user][:name], etc]. i wrote a shortcut for
this:
def allow_editing(instance, attribute)
instance_name = instance.class.name.underscore.downcase
if instance.send(attribute).is_a?(Time)
have_tag(
"input[name=''#{instance_name}[#{attribute}]''],
select[name=?]", /#{instance_name}\[#{attribute}\(.*\)\]/
)
else
have_tag(
"input[type=''text''][name=''#{instance_name}[#{attribute}]''],
select[name=''#{instance_name}[#{attribute}]''],
textarea[name=''#{instance_name}[#{attribute}]''],
input[type=''checkbox''][name=''#{instance_name}[#{attribute}]''],
input[type=''checkbox''][name=''#{instance_name}[#{attribute.to_s.tableize.singularize}_ids][]'']"
)
end
end
so i can use response.should allow_editing(@user, :name), etc. feel free to
checkout my pluginized form of these [
http://github.com/rsl/skinny_spec/tree/master] [hat tip to rick olsen''s
rspec on rails on crack for the basis of a good chunk of the controller
specs which i only rewrote for aesthetic preferences of it_should over
should.]
what you don''t want to do is spec content [text] or formatting in your
views. http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2007/1/29/testing-your-views is a good
read on this. hth
RSL
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Michael Breen
<hardbap-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Russell Norris wrote:
>
> As an Rspec user, I have to say that Shoulda is _not_ Rspec-like testing
> really. They resemble each other more in syntax but you''re still
stuck in
> the world of Test::Unit. I miss my view specs, I miss my testing in
> isolation, I miss my Rspec.
>
>
> Do you maintain specs for your routes also? This is one of the things that
> overwhelmed me when using rpsec.
>
> Also, do you spec all your views? I could see writing specs for tricky
> parts.
>
> Thanks.
> Mike
>
>
>
> RSL
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Michael Breen
<hardbap-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I''m at the same point as some of you on this thread.
I''m a freelancer
>> that really wants to get into BDD with rpsec (and be one of the cool
>> kids ;) but I always find myself stuck in neutral.
>>
>> >> Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps?
>>
>> Have you seen shoulda? http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda
>>
>> It allows for rspec like testing but sits on top of Test::Unit without
>> affecting your existing tests (I haven''t used test/spec but I
believe
>> it works this way too). I''m using shoulda to slowly work in
the whole
>> "should do something" approach.
>>
>> best.
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Thorsten Mueller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The syntax part is by far the smallest amount of learning i
guess.
>> >> What
>> >> takes time is the "What and how to test?"
>> >>
>> >
>> > You just hit the proverbial nail on its head.
>> >
>> >> And one more point: Testing becomes even more important, if
you work
>> >> in a team, where several people need to maintain the code and
not
>> >> everybody
>> >> may be aware of every relation one model has to another or
other
>> >> dependencies in the code.
>> >
>> > I fully agree with the importance of testing, even for one-man
>> > shops. I
>> > was first introduced to the test-first approach about a year ago.
As
>> > with many people, it was a complete reversal of everything
I''d ever
>> > learned or done. Kind of like agile development: all of my
development
>> > life, I had always been a part of something that used the
waterfall
>> > method. We had to have complete specifications before a single
line of
>> > code could be written, and the specs had to be signed off by half
the
>> > people in the company. The QA team didn''t see the
application until
>> > many
>> > months later, and every test plan had to be redone with every
simple
>> > change that affected it. After years and years of this,
it''s
>> > difficult
>> > to adjust to new ways of doing things. My biggest adjustment has
been
>> > being self-employed. Then, of course, there''s Rails. And
trying to be
>> > more agile. And here''s this testing-first idea. I
won''t mention source
>> > control ;)
>> >
>> > It''s been more than enough to make my head spin at times.
But, step by
>> > step, I''m getting there. I''m becoming more
competent in Rails. I''m
>> > slowly shedding the obesity of waterfall and becoming a bit more
>> > agile.
>> > I''ve at least broached the testing subject. And
I''m using source
>> > control, though not as frequently as I should.
>> >
>> > Remember "What About Bob?" and baby steps?
>> >
>> > Peace,
>> > Phillip
>> > --
>> > 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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Ruby Freak <twscannell-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > The biggest problems I am seeing are: > 1) The lack of instructional material.Check out the peep codes: http://peepcode.com/products/rspec-basics> 2) The total absence of instructional material that isn''t a year old.There are a lot of people blogging about rspec these days. Here are a few blogs that will provide a lot of insight for you: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net http://evang.eli.st/blog/ http://lindsaar.net/ http://www.benmabey.com/ http://www.brynary.com There are more - just use our friend google.> 3) The total arrogant disregard by the rspec community of people that > are part of their "in the know" clique.Pardon if this seems arrogant, but that''s just absolute pure bullshit. As the leader of the rspec community I take personal offense in that. Have you actually read through the archives of the rspec mailing lists? Check them out at http://groups.google.com/group/rspec and http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/ for older stuff. The RSpec community has it''s opinionated people (like me) just like any other community in the ruby space (or programming in general), but all in all people tend to get their questions answered.> I joined the rspec user group and politely asked for assistance in > finding learning materials and my request was completely ignored.Please point me to your question and I will personally see to it that it is responded to. The RSpec list is busy and sometimes things fall through the cracks. Please don''t take this personally. We want you and didn''t mean to ignore you.> That > has never happen in the Rails or the Ruby groups. even when I asked > really stupid questions.You''re lucky :) I''ve had several questions go unanswered over the years on the ruby-talk and rails lists. When I''ve not gotten answers right away, I''ve asked again and eventually gotten what I needed.> I think rspec looks very promising, especially considering the limited > debugging facilities in Rails, but learning it is like pulling teeth > and core team doesn''t seem to want to share.Again, I just don''t understand where you get this characterization of the core team from. Please help me understand so we can make it better. Cheers, David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---