rspec users - Feb 2008 - outside-in = integration tests on views?

Hi,

In the spirit of "outside-in" are given-when-then scenarios supposed
to be
integration tests of views?  Or should we be accessing the model interfaces
directly (not through a view)?

Thanks,
David :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080229/dc6b1660/attachment.html

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Beckwith <dbitsolutions at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the spirit of "outside-in" are given-when-then scenarios
supposed to be
> integration tests of views?
Do you mean "through views?" - i.e. view down to the db? If so, that
is one part of the picture.
> Or should we be accessing the model interfaces
> directly (not through a view)?
Why is this an either/or question?

I think it depends on the nature of the story. If the story is about
transferring money from checking to savings, then the domain objects
are fair game. If the story talks about an error message, or some sort
of user experience, then go through the views.

What I try to do when dealing with views, though, is keep things as
high level and general as I can while respecting the requirements. For
example, you''re more likely to see "When I go to the list of
employees" than "When I go to /employees." Or "When I enter
David for
Name" rather than "When I fill in the Name field with David." The
reason is that "When I enter David for Name" can be talking about a
web interface, a desktop interface, a batch job or a command line
interface.

If you think of :steps_for as a factory, because the step definitions
are decoupled from the scenarios, you can use the same scenarios to
drive steps that go through any of these different UIs, or no UIs at
all.

HTH,
David


>
> Thanks,
> David :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  rspec-users mailing list
>  rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>  http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Hi,

1. What is :steps_for for?

2. Is the GWT form of tests meant to replace it "should . . . .  ."
style of
tests?  I heard that GWT are written for your customer to represent a set of
acceptance criteria, and it-should tests are more for programmers.  Is that
how we should think about the difference these two kinds of tests?  Or are
they really the same thing?

BTW, Are the PeepCode rSpec tutorials worth buying?

Thanks,
David :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080302/a4303f8a/attachment-0001.html

>
>
> BTW, Are the PeepCode rSpec tutorials worth buying?
>
They are a steal.  I watched them after I had already been using rSpec 
for a couple months and I still learned a lot and felt like they were a 
great investment. I haven''t watched the Story one yet but the general 
rspec ones were great.

-Ben

> BTW, Are the PeepCode rSpec tutorials worth buying?
Anything from PeepCode is worth buying imho, but the specifically, the
three rspec ones I have watched have been excellent.

I just watched the story one on Sunday, and it was great. I bought a 5 pack
and can''t wait to watch the next one.

-Corey

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > BTW, Are the PeepCode rSpec tutorials worth buying?
> >
>
> They are a steal.  I watched them after I had already been using rSpec
> for a couple months and I still learned a lot and felt like they were a
> great investment. I haven''t watched the Story one yet but the
general
> rspec ones were great.
>
> -Ben
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
http://www.coreyhaines.com
The Internet''s Premiere source of information about Corey Haines
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080311/9179c10e/attachment.html