Now that RSpec is nearing 1 dot oh, are there any plans to implement an integration testing equivalent in RSpec On Rails?
On 4/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:> Now that RSpec is nearing 1 dot ohIt is?>, are there any plans to implement > an integration testing equivalent in RSpec On Rails?There''s an open RFE for this http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=9381&group_id=797&atid=3152. Just a matter of priority. If somebody wants to take a stab at a patch, that might move it up. David> _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On 4/7/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:> On 4/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote: > > Now that RSpec is nearing 1 dot oh > > It is?Only if there''s no possiblity of 0.10, 0.11, etc. -- Bryan Helmkmap http://brynary.com -- My blog
On 4/7/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:> There''s an open RFE for this > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=9381&group_id=797&atid=3152. > Just a matter of priority. If somebody wants to take a stab at a > patch, that might move it up.I guess it''s worth asking if what we are talking about should be termed "integration" specs or "acceptance" specs. In my current RSpec project, we use a spec/integration directory for specs that cover specific clusters of objects, often with DB access, but still not at a high level the customer could understand. We reserve spec/models, spec/controllers, and spec/views for specifying behavior for those pieces in isolation, with as few DB hits as possible. A significant issue I see is that Rails'' integration specs are not at as high of a level as I think they should be. I''d like to write something like: visit PageA should click_link("Next page") should be_on(PageB) I''m (very slowly) working on a library to support this kind of syntax in Rails integration specs, but it would be even better to do this with RSpec. -- Bryan Helmkmap http://brynary.com -- My blog
On 4/8/07, Bryan Helmkamp <brynarylists at gmail.com> wrote:> On 4/7/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Now that RSpec is nearing 1 dot oh > > > > It is? > > Only if there''s no possiblity of 0.10, 0.11, etc.There is very definitely the possibility of 0.10, 0.11, etc. We''d like to get to 1.0, but not prematurely. While I don''t anticipate any backwards-compatibility breaking changes (like going from underscores to spaces), there are still some DSL ideas floating around that need to be explored and proven out before we commit to a 1.0. "describe/it" for example, which I like better, and some others do as well, does not prevent us from supporting "context/specify".> > -- > Bryan Helmkmap > http://brynary.com -- My blog > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
My bad. I made the silly blunder of thinking that the next point after 0.9 would be 1.0. Obviously having version numbers higher than .9 is quite common ;) On 4/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:> On 4/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote: > > Now that RSpec is nearing 1 dot oh > > It is? > > >, are there any plans to implement > > an integration testing equivalent in RSpec On Rails? > > There''s an open RFE for this > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=9381&group_id=797&atid=3152. > Just a matter of priority. If somebody wants to take a stab at a > patch, that might move it up. > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >