rspec users - Sep 2008 - Best way to determine if RSpec is loaded?

Hi

I''ve been using the Twitter gem, but I discovered it loads  
ActiveSupport, which meddles with Kernel#require and generally causes  
me confusion and pain.  I don''t need Twitter loaded for my specs,  
currently I''m doing this:

   require ''twitter'' unless Object.const_defined?(:Spec)

Is there a better way?

This got me thinking... in general, should it matter whether you load  
the whole app and dependent libraries for specs?  Is a spec any less  
isolated if you load the whole app vs just the class the spec relates  
to?

The one advantage I know of is if the whole app is available, you can  
mock(My::Class) and it''ll tell you if you''re mocking something
that
doesn''t exist.  That''s good, right?

Thanks

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Ashley Moran
<ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I''ve been using the Twitter gem, but I discovered it loads
ActiveSupport,
> which meddles with Kernel#require and generally causes me confusion and
> pain.  I don''t need Twitter loaded for my specs, currently
I''m doing this:
>
>  require ''twitter'' unless Object.const_defined?(:Spec)
>
> Is there a better way?
Depends on where that is. If it''s in a high level conf file, then
it''s
probably the best you can do. If it''s lower down, you *could* set up
an ENV variable instead and use that as your conditional. Have it
default to true, but have your spec config set it to false. Still
kinda ugly :)
> This got me thinking... in general, should it matter whether you load the
> whole app and dependent libraries for specs?  Is a spec any less isolated
if
> you load the whole app vs just the class the spec relates to?
In theory it should be fine, but when you''re running a suite of
examples you''re going to eventually want to load up everything in the
app, no?
> The one advantage I know of is if the whole app is available, you can
> mock(My::Class) and it''ll tell you if you''re mocking
something that doesn''t
> exist.  That''s good, right?
RSpec''s mocks don''t do that (tell you when a mocked method
doesn''t
really exist). Are you using a mocking frawework that does?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ashley
>
> --
> http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
> http://aviewfromafar.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 29 Sep 2008, at 13:28, David Chelimsky wrote:
> In theory it should be fine, but when you''re running a suite of
> examples you''re going to eventually want to load up everything in
the
> app, no?
True!  But I''ve had a lot of loading issues lately, when autotest runs
a single file and everything breaks.

>> The one advantage I know of is if the whole app is available, you can
>> mock(My::Class) and it''ll tell you if you''re mocking
something that
>> doesn''t
>> exist.  That''s good, right?
>
> RSpec''s mocks don''t do that (tell you when a mocked
method doesn''t
> really exist). Are you using a mocking frawework that does?
Ah, I was referring no the class, not the method.   I like being told  
My::Class doesn''t exist, it''s a motivation to create the files
and write

   it "should do something" do
     violated
   end

I find that helps drive development down the app''s layers.

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/