The following statements will save you lots of time, and most importantly, develop a better application when beginning Rails development. Fixtures are faster, but conciseness is more important. Use factories (Machinist or Factory girl). Don''t worry about the speed of your test/ spec suite. Use autotest or autospec. --- I started out with fixtures, then switched to factories. Lost patience and switched back to fixtures. Now back to factories for maintainability and conciseness. Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application in your test/spec suite. --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, conciseness is more important. Your test framework does not matter. Test/unit, Shoulda, RSpec all produce the same outcome. Choose by what syntax you feel comfortable with. For every great developer that uses test/unit, there is a great developer using RSpec. --- For whatever reason I cannot explain, RSpec feels most comfortable to me. I started with test/unit, switched to RSpec, then shoulda, then test/unit, and now back to RSpec. I will not switch again. Test the entire stack. Do not just test models. Test/spec models, controllers, and use integration tests/specs. This will give you confidence when developing and literally makes your work 1000 times less stressful. Yes, it takes more time, but it is the ONLY way to develop a reliable app that works. --- I started out just testing models. This does not catch view errors, and my users paid for it. If TDD or BDD does not fit your brain, don''t do it. DHH doesn''t do it, and you don''t have to either. This is no excuse for not testing everything though. --- For me, TDD/BDD does not let me test/spec comfortably. I tried both ways, and my code always turns out better when NOT using TDD/BDD. I support the philosophy, but it is not "necessary". Some people will say I am "doing it wrong", but if the end outcome is exactly what I want, why does it matter how I got there? If I had known these things when beginning, I would have saved countless hours trying to follow the "one golden path" that does not exist. I hope this helps. -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Thanks, but it''s too late ;) Needed that advice a year ago. Until a few days back I had no idea how fun testing your app is. Love cucumber and the rest. It''s a good feeling when you know that you app is working well cause of all the tests you''re doing. What''s also nice are the screencasts like peepcode.com, pragprog.com, bddcasts.com and teachmetocode.com etc. The community is just awesome. Chris -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
than you iam iranin ican not speek enghlis well &iwrith not hard fram halptime wery happiy maryam On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM, jko170 <jko170-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> The following statements will save you lots of time, and most > importantly, develop a better application when beginning Rails > development. > > Fixtures are faster, but conciseness is more important. Use factories > (Machinist or Factory girl). Don''t worry about the speed of your test/ > spec suite. Use autotest or autospec. > --- I started out with fixtures, then switched to factories. Lost > patience and switched back to fixtures. Now back to factories for > maintainability and conciseness. > > Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > in your test/spec suite. > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > conciseness is more important. > > Your test framework does not matter. Test/unit, Shoulda, RSpec all > produce the same outcome. Choose by what syntax you feel comfortable > with. For every great developer that uses test/unit, there is a great > developer using RSpec. > --- For whatever reason I cannot explain, RSpec feels most comfortable > to me. I started with test/unit, switched to RSpec, then shoulda, then > test/unit, and now back to RSpec. I will not switch again. > > Test the entire stack. Do not just test models. Test/spec models, > controllers, and use integration tests/specs. This will give you > confidence when developing and literally makes your work 1000 times > less stressful. Yes, it takes more time, but it is the ONLY way to > develop a reliable app that works. > --- I started out just testing models. This does not catch view > errors, and my users paid for it. > > If TDD or BDD does not fit your brain, don''t do it. DHH doesn''t do it, > and you don''t have to either. This is no excuse for not testing > everything though. > --- For me, TDD/BDD does not let me test/spec comfortably. I tried > both ways, and my code always turns out better when NOT using TDD/BDD. > I support the philosophy, but it is not "necessary". Some people will > say I am "doing it wrong", but if the end outcome is exactly what I > want, why does it matter how I got there? > > If I had known these things when beginning, I would have saved > countless hours trying to follow the "one golden path" that does not > exist. I hope this helps. > > -- > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > >-- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
> Test the entire stack. Do not just test models. Test/spec models, > controllers, and use integration tests/specs. This will give you > confidence when developing and literally makes your work 1000 times > less stressful. Yes, it takes more time, but it is the ONLY way to > develop a reliable app that works. > --- I started out just testing models. This does not catch view > errors, and my users paid for it. >Selenium is great for this, it even tests your javascripts. Things I haven''t to test with selenium is file-uploads and swf-movies. There are hacks to test file-uploads, but I rather do controller tests for those. -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
What''s also important is refactoring (the third step in red/green/refactor). There a lot of real geeky tools like: - flog - reek - rcov - roodi - heckle Cheers, Chris -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Thanks for posting this -- it''s some interesting food for thought.> Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > in your test/spec suite. > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > conciseness is more important.I think this point is debatable though. The point of mocking models in your tests is to allow the tests to run in complete isolation. e.g., there''s no reason for your Post model tests to break when you add a new required field to your User model. Your point is valid for integration and other high-level tests, but unit testing is equally important in my mind and it certainly benefits from mocking. Jeff On Dec 10, 1:05 am, jko170 <jko...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> The following statements will save you lots of time, and most > importantly, develop a better application when beginning Rails > development. > > Fixtures are faster, but conciseness is more important. Use factories > (Machinist or Factory girl). Don''t worry about the speed of your test/ > spec suite. Use autotest or autospec. > --- I started out with fixtures, then switched to factories. Lost > patience and switched back to fixtures. Now back to factories for > maintainability and conciseness. > > Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > in your test/spec suite. > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > conciseness is more important. > > Your test framework does not matter. Test/unit, Shoulda, RSpec all > produce the same outcome. Choose by what syntax you feel comfortable > with. For every great developer that uses test/unit, there is a great > developer using RSpec. > --- For whatever reason I cannot explain, RSpec feels most comfortable > to me. I started with test/unit, switched to RSpec, then shoulda, then > test/unit, and now back to RSpec. I will not switch again. > > Test the entire stack. Do not just test models. Test/spec models, > controllers, and use integration tests/specs. This will give you > confidence when developing and literally makes your work 1000 times > less stressful. Yes, it takes more time, but it is the ONLY way to > develop a reliable app that works. > --- I started out just testing models. This does not catch view > errors, and my users paid for it. > > If TDD or BDD does not fit your brain, don''t do it. DHH doesn''t do it, > and you don''t have to either. This is no excuse for not testing > everything though. > --- For me, TDD/BDD does not let me test/spec comfortably. I tried > both ways, and my code always turns out better when NOT using TDD/BDD. > I support the philosophy, but it is not "necessary". Some people will > say I am "doing it wrong", but if the end outcome is exactly what I > want, why does it matter how I got there? > > If I had known these things when beginning, I would have saved > countless hours trying to follow the "one golden path" that does not > exist. I hope this helps.-- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Jeff, Take the opposite of your scenario. Let''s say you remove a column from the User model......your tests still pass if its mocked. Do that a couple times and you have cruft all over the application. That right there gives me a uncomfortable feeling.....like I''m not really testing my MY models. On Dec 10, 9:37 am, Jeff Tucker <trydio...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Thanks for posting this -- it''s some interesting food for thought. > > > Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > > in your test/spec suite. > > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > > conciseness is more important. > > I think this point is debatable though. The point of mocking models > in your tests is to allow the tests to run in complete isolation. > e.g., there''s no reason for your Post model tests to break when you > add a new required field to your User model. Your point is valid for > integration and other high-level tests, but unit testing is equally > important in my mind and it certainly benefits from mocking. > > Jeff > > On Dec 10, 1:05 am, jko170 <jko...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > The following statements will save you lots of time, and most > > importantly, develop a better application when beginning Rails > > development. > > > Fixtures are faster, but conciseness is more important. Use factories > > (Machinist or Factory girl). Don''t worry about the speed of your test/ > > spec suite. Use autotest or autospec. > > --- I started out with fixtures, then switched to factories. Lost > > patience and switched back to fixtures. Now back to factories for > > maintainability and conciseness. > > > Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > > in your test/spec suite. > > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > > conciseness is more important. > > > Your test framework does not matter. Test/unit, Shoulda, RSpec all > > produce the same outcome. Choose by what syntax you feel comfortable > > with. For every great developer that uses test/unit, there is a great > > developer using RSpec. > > --- For whatever reason I cannot explain, RSpec feels most comfortable > > to me. I started with test/unit, switched to RSpec, then shoulda, then > > test/unit, and now back to RSpec. I will not switch again. > > > Test the entire stack. Do not just test models. Test/spec models, > > controllers, and use integration tests/specs. This will give you > > confidence when developing and literally makes your work 1000 times > > less stressful. Yes, it takes more time, but it is the ONLY way to > > develop a reliable app that works. > > --- I started out just testing models. This does not catch view > > errors, and my users paid for it. > > > If TDD or BDD does not fit your brain, don''t do it. DHH doesn''t do it, > > and you don''t have to either. This is no excuse for not testing > > everything though. > > --- For me, TDD/BDD does not let me test/spec comfortably. I tried > > both ways, and my code always turns out better when NOT using TDD/BDD. > > I support the philosophy, but it is not "necessary". Some people will > > say I am "doing it wrong", but if the end outcome is exactly what I > > want, why does it matter how I got there? > > > If I had known these things when beginning, I would have saved > > countless hours trying to follow the "one golden path" that does not > > exist. I hope this helps.-- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
That''s exactly my point! The unit tests for the Post model should be blissfully ignorant of any and all changes to the User model. My intent in unit testing a model is to simply verify that the behavior stated actually occurs, *presuming that all the external factors happen as they should.* If I have some code in the Post model that sets a published flag only if the user is a moderator, I would rather just say mock_model(User, :moderator => true) than go through the process of building a moderator User model, handling validations, required associations, etc. If a future change removed the moderator flag from the User, then the tests I''ve written for the Post model still say that the model works as it''s written -- it''s just that the User no longer conforms the the Post''s expectations. Thus, I expect damaging changes to the User model not to show up in my Post unit tests, but in some various high-level integration tests where I''m actually observing that the interactions between models go as planned. I agree that mocking can leave your tests a bit crufty unless you''re very skilled at mocking up front (which I definitely am not :)). However, in my experience, when I start working with unit tests for complex models without mocks, I find myself spending too much time just maintaining the tests for the changes occurring in the associated models. I find the overhead of handling mocks preferable to keeping up with changes in other models. Mocking is something I''ve spent an inordinate amount of time considering, and I have come to terms with the pros (complete isolation) and cons (test management overhead). I''ve also come to the conclusion that this is very much like the TDD/BDD/EDD/whatever flavor is popular argument -- there''s some substance to the differences, but at the end of the day it''s a matter of personal taste. Cheers! Jeff On Dec 10, 3:59 pm, jko170 <jko...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Jeff, > > Take the opposite of your scenario. Let''s say you remove a column from > the User model......your tests still pass if its mocked. Do that a > couple times and you have cruft all over the application. That right > there gives me a uncomfortable feeling.....like I''m not really testing > my MY models. > > On Dec 10, 9:37 am, Jeff Tucker <trydio...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for posting this -- it''s some interesting food for thought. > > > > Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > > > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > > > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > > > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > > > in your test/spec suite. > > > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > > > conciseness is more important. > > > I think this point is debatable though. The point of mocking models > > in your tests is to allow the tests to run in complete isolation. > > e.g., there''s no reason for your Post model tests to break when you > > add a new required field to your User model. Your point is valid for > > integration and other high-level tests, but unit testing is equally > > important in my mind and it certainly benefits from mocking. > > > Jeff > > > On Dec 10, 1:05 am, jko170 <jko...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > The following statements will save you lots of time, and most > > > importantly, develop a better application when beginning Rails > > > development. > > > > Fixtures are faster, but conciseness is more important. Use factories > > > (Machinist or Factory girl). Don''t worry about the speed of your test/ > > > spec suite. Use autotest or autospec. > > > --- I started out with fixtures, then switched to factories. Lost > > > patience and switched back to fixtures. Now back to factories for > > > maintainability and conciseness. > > > > Do not mock everything to make your test/spec suite "database > > > independent". Your tests are SUPPOSED to break when you change code in > > > your model or controller. Mocking everything will not allow this, and > > > will give you the feeling that you''re developing a second application > > > in your test/spec suite. > > > --- Yes, it will speed up your tests/specs, but once again, > > > conciseness is more important. > > > > Your test framework does not matter. Test/unit, Shoulda, RSpec all > > > produce the same outcome. Choose by what syntax you feel comfortable > > > with. For every great developer that uses test/unit, there is a great > > > developer using RSpec. > > > --- For whatever reason I cannot explain, RSpec feels most comfortable > > > to me. I started with test/unit, switched to RSpec, then shoulda, then > > > test/unit, and now back to RSpec. I will not switch again. > > > > Test the entire stack. Do not just test models. Test/spec models, > > > controllers, and use integration tests/specs. This will give you > > > confidence when developing and literally makes your work 1000 times > > > less stressful. Yes, it takes more time, but it is the ONLY way to > > > develop a reliable app that works. > > > --- I started out just testing models. This does not catch view > > > errors, and my users paid for it. > > > > If TDD or BDD does not fit your brain, don''t do it. DHH doesn''t do it, > > > and you don''t have to either. This is no excuse for not testing > > > everything though. > > > --- For me, TDD/BDD does not let me test/spec comfortably. I tried > > > both ways, and my code always turns out better when NOT using TDD/BDD. > > > I support the philosophy, but it is not "necessary". Some people will > > > say I am "doing it wrong", but if the end outcome is exactly what I > > > want, why does it matter how I got there? > > > > If I had known these things when beginning, I would have saved > > > countless hours trying to follow the "one golden path" that does not > > > exist. I hope this helps. > >-- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.