rspec users - Apr 2009 - Pending expectations

I''ve noticed that pending expectations fail if the before(:each) code
is not
implemented yet. In other words, taking the example code from
Peepcode''s rspec
series:

describe Weather, ".fetch for zipcode" do

  before(:each) do
    @weather = Weather.fetch_for_zipcode(98117)
  end

  it "should populate zipcode"

  it "should populate temperature units"

  it "should populate recorded at"

end

With rspec-1.2.0 this will result in 3 failing tests (as fetch_for_zipcode is
not yet implemented), whereas in the original screencast it caused the three
expectations to be reported as pending - which makes more sense to me.

How come?
-sven

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Sven <svoop at delirium.ch>
wrote:
> I''ve noticed that pending expectations fail if the before(:each)
code is not
> implemented yet. In other words, taking the example code from
Peepcode''s rspec
> series:
>
> describe Weather, ".fetch for zipcode" do
>
> ?before(:each) do
> ? ?@weather = Weather.fetch_for_zipcode(98117)
> ?end
>
> ?it "should populate zipcode"
>
> ?it "should populate temperature units"
>
> ?it "should populate recorded at"
>
> end
>
> With rspec-1.2.0 this will result in 3 failing tests (as fetch_for_zipcode
is
> not yet implemented), whereas in the original screencast it caused the
three
> expectations to be reported as pending - which makes more sense to me.
>
> How come?
Please file a bug report at http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com and include
the backtrace you''re getting.

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

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Sven <svoop at delirium.ch> wrote:
> describe Weather, ".fetch for zipcode" do
>
> ?before(:each) do
> ? ?@weather = Weather.fetch_for_zipcode(98117)
> ?end
>
> ?it "should populate zipcode"
>
> ?it "should populate temperature units"
>
> ?it "should populate recorded at"
>
> end
>
> With rspec-1.2.0 this will result in 3 failing tests (as fetch_for_zipcode
is
> not yet implemented), whereas in the original screencast it caused the
three
> expectations to be reported as pending - which makes more sense to me.
No one asked me, but I think the new way is better. If I write code,
it should be correct. If I didn''t care if the call to
fetch_for_zipcode was correct, I''d comment it out, mock it out, or
just not write it in the first place. In general, I write before()
after I write the examples, since I usually consider it just a DRY
refactoring.

///ark

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Sven <svoop at delirium.ch> wrote:
>
>> describe Weather, ".fetch for zipcode" do
>>
>> ?before(:each) do
>> ? ?@weather = Weather.fetch_for_zipcode(98117)
>> ?end
>>
>> ?it "should populate zipcode"
>>
>> ?it "should populate temperature units"
>>
>> ?it "should populate recorded at"
>>
>> end
>>
>> With rspec-1.2.0 this will result in 3 failing tests (as
fetch_for_zipcode is
>> not yet implemented), whereas in the original screencast it caused the
three
>> expectations to be reported as pending - which makes more sense to me.
>
> No one asked me, but I think the new way is better. If I write code,
> it should be correct. If I didn''t care if the call to
> fetch_for_zipcode was correct, I''d comment it out, mock it out, or
> just not write it in the first place. In general, I write before()
> after I write the examples, since I usually consider it just a DRY
> refactoring.
No one asked me either, but I think Mark''s approach is a valid
approach, but not the only approach :)

When writing specs with a describe/context structure, like this:

describe Thing do
  context "with no widgets" do
    before(:each) do
      @thing = Thing.new
    end
    it "acts one way"
  end

  context "with one widget" do
    before(:each) do
      @thing = Thing.new(:widgets => [Widget.new])
    end
    it "acts a different way"
  end
end

It is fairly common to write code to align with the context in the
before blocks. My expectation would be, in this case, that the before
blocks are not run unless there is at least one non-pending example in
the group.

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

> In general, I write before()
> after I write the examples, since I usually consider it just a DRY
> refactoring.
Good point. I guess I''ll just get used to it then :-)

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Sven <svoop at delirium.ch>
wrote:
>> In general, I write before()
>> after I write the examples, since I usually consider it just a DRY
>> refactoring.
>
> Good point. I guess I''ll just get used to it then :-)
No, please don''t get used to it. The behaviour you expect is correct,
and the behaviour you are seeing is incorrect.

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

> No, please don''t get used to it. The behaviour you expect is
correct,
> and the behaviour you are seeing is incorrect.
Okidoke, I''ve submitted a ticket on Lighthouse.