Rails - Dec 2010 - Shoulda issue: no more "should have_instance_methods" ?

I''m using Shoulda.
After copying the code here....
.... http://joshuaclayton.github.com/code/2009/07/14/should-act-as-list.html....
into my test_helper file so I can test acts_as_list, I came across
issues.  For one I realized I had to get rid of the _ between the
"should" and "have" in past cases, but here, I get this
error when I
run my unit test:

./test/test_helper.rb:28:in `should_act_as_list'': undefined method
`have_instance_methods'' for ArticleTest:Class (NoMethodError)

What''s the Rails 3 way to test acts_as_list with Shoulda?

-- 
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.

daze wrote in post #969974:
> I''m using Shoulda.
> After copying the code here....
> ....
> http://joshuaclayton.github.com/code/2009/07/14/should-act-as-list.html....
> into my test_helper file so I can test acts_as_list, I came across
> issues.  For one I realized I had to get rid of the _ between the
> "should" and "have" in past cases, but here, I get this
error when I
> run my unit test:
>
> ./test/test_helper.rb:28:in `should_act_as_list'': undefined method
> `have_instance_methods'' for ArticleTest:Class (NoMethodError)
>
> What''s the Rails 3 way to test acts_as_list with Shoulda?
Well, that whole way of testing is wrongheaded and always was.  You 
shouldn''t be testing for implementation details like instance methods; 
rather, you should be testing for behavior.  (Although I sometimes test 
for acts_as_list by making sure the appropriate module was included into 
the class.)

Usually, if you''re trying to poke into internals, something is wrong 
with your tests.  The object being tested should generally be considered 
a black box.  (BTW, consider RSpec instead of Shoulda.  I believe even 
Shoulda''s own developers have switched.)

Best,
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org

Sent from my iPhone

-- 
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-/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.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> daze wrote in post #969974:
> > I''m using Shoulda.
> > After copying the code here....
> > ....
> >
> http://joshuaclayton.github.com/code/2009/07/14/should-act-as-list.html..
> ..
> > into my test_helper file so I can test acts_as_list, I came across
> > issues.  For one I realized I had to get rid of the _ between the
> > "should" and "have" in past cases, but here, I get
this error when I
> > run my unit test:
> >
> > ./test/test_helper.rb:28:in `should_act_as_list'': undefined
method
> > `have_instance_methods'' for ArticleTest:Class (NoMethodError)
> >
> > What''s the Rails 3 way to test acts_as_list with Shoulda?
>
> Well, that whole way of testing is wrongheaded and always was.  You
> shouldn''t be testing for implementation details like instance
methods;
> rather, you should be testing for behavior.  (Although I sometimes test
> for acts_as_list by making sure the appropriate module was included into
> the class.)
>
> Usually, if you''re trying to poke into internals, something is
wrong
> with your tests.  The object being tested should generally be considered
> a black box.  (BTW, consider RSpec instead of Shoulda.  I believe even
> Shoulda''s own developers have switched.)
>
From what I understand, Thoughtbot, the developers of Shoulda are using
Rspec however are continuing to use and support the Shoulda helpers... as
they make life easier than not using them.

>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser
> http://www.marnen.org
> marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> --
> 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-/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.

On Dec 22, 9:45 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser
<li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Well, that whole way of testing is wrongheaded and always was.  You
> shouldn''t be testing for implementation details like instance
methods;
> rather, you should be testing for behavior.  (Although I sometimes test
> for acts_as_list by making sure the appropriate module was included into
> the class.)
>
> Usually, if you''re trying to poke into internals, something is
wrong
> with your tests.  The object being tested should generally be considered
> a black box.  (BTW, consider RSpec instead of Shoulda.  I believe even
> Shoulda''s own developers have switched.)
Okay - so what exactly should I do regarding testing the acts_as_list
gem?

On Dec 22, 9:53 am, David Kahn
<d...-rfEMNHKVqOwNic7Bib+Ti1W1rNmOCjRP@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> From what I understand, Thoughtbot, the developers of Shoulda are using
> Rspec however are continuing to use and support the Shoulda helpers... as
> they make life easier than not using them.
I will get rspec I guess.  You can use rspec and shoulda together,
right?

-- 
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.

daze wrote in post #970132:
> On Dec 22, 9:45am, Marnen Laibow-Koser
<li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Well, that whole way of testing is wrongheaded and always was. You
>> shouldn''t be testing for implementation details like instance
methods;
>> rather, you should be testing for behavior. (Although I sometimes test
>> for acts_as_list by making sure the appropriate module was included
into
>> the class.)
>>
>> Usually, if you''re trying to poke into internals, something is
wrong
>> with your tests. The object being tested should generally be considered
>> a black box. (BTW, consider RSpec instead of Shoulda. I believe even
>> Shoulda''s own developers have switched.)
>
> Okay - so what exactly should I do regarding testing the acts_as_list
> gem?
As I said above, test behavior, or test that the one module (I think 
it''s Acts::somethingorother) got included in the appropriate class.
>
> On Dec 22, 9:53am, David Kahn
<d...-rfEMNHKVqOwNic7Bib+Ti1W1rNmOCjRP@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> From what I understand, Thoughtbot, the developers of Shoulda are using
>> Rspec however are continuing to use and support the Shoulda helpers...
as
>> they make life easier than not using them.
>
> I will get rspec I guess.  You can use rspec and shoulda together,
> right?
I''m not sure, but I don''t understand why you''d want
to.  Shoulda is
basically an RSpec knockoff.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org

-- 
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-/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.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> daze wrote in post #970132:
> > On Dec 22, 9:45am, Marnen Laibow-Koser
<li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> Well, that whole way of testing is wrongheaded and always was. You
> >> shouldn''t be testing for implementation details like
instance methods;
> >> rather, you should be testing for behavior. (Although I sometimes
test
> >> for acts_as_list by making sure the appropriate module was
included into
> >> the class.)
> >>
> >> Usually, if you''re trying to poke into internals,
something is wrong
> >> with your tests. The object being tested should generally be
considered
> >> a black box. (BTW, consider RSpec instead of Shoulda. I believe
even
> >> Shoulda''s own developers have switched.)
> >
> > Okay - so what exactly should I do regarding testing the acts_as_list
> > gem?
>
> As I said above, test behavior, or test that the one module (I think
> it''s Acts::somethingorother) got included in the appropriate
class.
>
> >
> > On Dec 22, 9:53am, David Kahn
<d...-rfEMNHKVqOwNic7Bib+Ti1W1rNmOCjRP@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> From what I understand, Thoughtbot, the developers of Shoulda are
using
> >> Rspec however are continuing to use and support the Shoulda
helpers...
> as
> >> they make life easier than not using them.
> >
> > I will get rspec I guess.  You can use rspec and shoulda together,
> > right?
>
> I''m not sure, but I don''t understand why you''d
want to.  Shoulda is
> basically an RSpec knockoff.
>
...yes you can use Rspec with shoulda, in fact that is the intended use at
this point as the Thoughtbot team say they are using Rspec. I think the
matchers add value to rspec and to date no one has shown me how to do some
of the same things that the shoulda matchers do in pure rspec w/o shoulda.


>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser
> http://www.marnen.org
> marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
>
> --
> 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-/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.

Great, thanks!

So in summary:

1) Use rspec and shoulda together, as the Thoughtbot team (which
created shoulda) is saying they are using rspec
2) To test acts_as_list, test the behavior of it (or test the
inclusion of that one module in the appropriate class)

I don''t know what "that one module is" or how to test its
inclusion in
a class though... but otherwise thanks guys!

-- 
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.

> 2) To test acts_as_list, test the behavior of it (or test the
> inclusion of that one module in the appropriate class)
> 
> I don''t know what "that one module is" or how to test
its inclusion in
> a class though... but otherwise thanks guys!
If it were me I wouldn''t test for the inclusion of the class. 
I''d test to the behavior only.  Test that when you move an item around
in the list the results are what you expect.  That way when you decide to switch
to "acts_as_list_on_steroids_fu" which implements the same behavior
but adds all kinds of other goodies your tests will still pass and more
importantly they pass for the right reason.

-philip

-- 
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.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, daze
<dmonopoly10-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Great, thanks!
>
> So in summary:
>
> 1) Use rspec and shoulda together, as the Thoughtbot team (which
> created shoulda) is saying they are using rspec
>
PS - I cant find the original but this looks like a republish of the
Thoughtbot writup on the status of Shoulda:
http://www.l-exp.com/m/feed/show/971486

> 2) To test acts_as_list, test the behavior of it (or test the
> inclusion of that one module in the appropriate class)
>
> I don''t know what "that one module is" or how to test
its inclusion in
> a class though... but otherwise thanks guys!
>
> --
> 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.