rspec users - Nov 2011 - Write tests for objects with lots of dependencies

Hello,

I''m writing a Risk-like webgame 
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails) and I want to add tests, 
but it''s painful since objects have a lot of dependencies each other.

For instance, I have moved the attack logic in a dedicated class 
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails/blob/develop/app/models/attack.rb)
and I would like to test it.

The problem is that to test an attack, I need to have at least two 
ownerships (the relation between a territory and a participation). And to 
have two ownerships, I need to have many participations (the relation 
between a player and a game), and for that I need players.

It''s a lot of setup for a quite simple test.

So, what should I do? Should I write a big setup for my suite? Or can I 
write a "sub-suites" with this big setup?

Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20111107/87450b10/attachment.html>

On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Romain Tribes wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I''m writing a Risk-like webgame
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails) and I want to add tests, but
it''s painful since objects have a lot of dependencies each other.
> 
> For instance, I have moved the attack logic in a dedicated class
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails/blob/develop/app/models/attack.rb)
and I would like to test it.
> 
> The problem is that to test an attack, I need to have at least two
ownerships (the relation between a territory and a participation). And to have
two ownerships, I need to have many participations (the relation between a
player and a game), and for that I need players.
> 
> It''s a lot of setup for a quite simple test.
If it requires a lot of set up it is inherently complex. Even though the premise
of the test might feel simple to you, the fact that you have to negotiate your
way through a web of dependencies means that when something fails,
you''ll have a longer trail to hike to find the cause. It also means
your code is going to be hard to change. Loose coupling is one hallmark of good,
flexible software. Tests that require a lot of setup expose a tightly coupled
design.
> So, what should I do?
Is this a pet project for you, or something for work? If it''s the
former, something you''re using as a learning/practice vehicle,
I''d recommend starting over test first, and any time you find that the
test is starting to require complex set up, stop and rethink the design.
> Should I write a big setup for my suite? Or can I write a
"sub-suites" with this big setup?
You can always extract big setup to some helper methods that set things up for
you. All of us do this more than we''d like to admit. But it always ends
up biting  you in the end.

HTH,
David

On 15 Nov 2011, at 04:04, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Romain Tribes wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I''m writing a Risk-like webgame
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails) and I want to add tests, but
it''s painful since objects have a lot of dependencies each other.
>> 
>> For instance, I have moved the attack logic in a dedicated class
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails/blob/develop/app/models/attack.rb)
and I would like to test it.
>> 
>> The problem is that to test an attack, I need to have at least two
ownerships (the relation between a territory and a participation). And to have
two ownerships, I need to have many participations (the relation between a
player and a game), and for that I need players.
>> 
>> It''s a lot of setup for a quite simple test.
> 
> If it requires a lot of set up it is inherently complex. Even though the
premise of the test might feel simple to you, the fact that you have to
negotiate your way through a web of dependencies means that when something
fails, you''ll have a longer trail to hike to find the cause. It also
means your code is going to be hard to change. Loose coupling is one hallmark of
good, flexible software. Tests that require a lot of setup expose a tightly
coupled design.
+1

I''d recommend this book too:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Robert-Martin/dp/0131177052
> 
>> So, what should I do?
> 
> Is this a pet project for you, or something for work? If it''s the
former, something you''re using as a learning/practice vehicle,
I''d recommend starting over test first, and any time you find that the
test is starting to require complex set up, stop and rethink the design.
> 
>> Should I write a big setup for my suite? Or can I write a
"sub-suites" with this big setup?
> 
> You can always extract big setup to some helper methods that set things up
for you. All of us do this more than we''d like to admit. But it always
ends up biting  you in the end.
> 
> HTH,
> David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
cheers,
Matt

--
Freelance programmer & coach
Author, http://pragprog.com/book/hwcuc/the-cucumber-book (with Aslak Helles?y)
Founder, http://relishapp.com
+44(0)7974430184 | http://twitter.com/mattwynne

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20111115/ca2e6bb9/attachment-0001.html>

On 11/15/11 6:30 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov 2011, at 04:04, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Romain Tribes wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I''m writing a Risk-like webgame
>>> (https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails) and I want to add
>>> tests, but it''s painful since objects have a lot of
dependencies each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> For instance, I have moved the attack logic in a dedicated class
>>>
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails/blob/develop/app/models/attack.rb)
>>> and I would like to test it.
>>>
>>> The problem is that to test an attack, I need to have at least two
>>> ownerships (the relation between a territory and a participation).
>>> And to have two ownerships, I need to have many participations (the
>>> relation between a player and a game), and for that I need players.
>>>
>>> It''s a lot of setup for a quite simple test.
>>
>> If it requires a lot of set up it is inherently complex. Even though
>> the premise of the test might feel simple to you, the fact that you
>> have to negotiate your way through a web of dependencies means that
>> when something fails, you''ll have a longer trail to hike to
find the
>> cause. It also means your code is going to be hard to change. Loose
>> coupling is one hallmark of good, flexible software. Tests that
>> require a lot of setup expose a tightly coupled design.
>
> +1
>
> I''d recommend this book too:
>
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Robert-Martin/dp/0131177052
+2

I''d recommend starting with 
http://objectmentor.com/resources/articles/dip.pdf as it will help you 
break those dependency chains.
>>> So, what should I do?
>>
>> Is this a pet project for you, or something for work? If it''s
the
>> former, something you''re using as a learning/practice vehicle,
I''d
>> recommend starting over test first, and any time you find that the
>> test is starting to require complex set up, stop and rethink the
design.
>>
>>> Should I write a big setup for my suite? Or can I write a
>>> "sub-suites" with this big setup?
>>
>> You can always extract big setup to some helper methods that set
>> things up for you. All of us do this more than we''d like to
admit. But
>> it always ends up biting you in the end.
-- 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
   Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
   Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8 Nov 2011, at 06:52, Romain Tribes wrote:
> I''m writing a Risk-like webgame
(https://github.com/Sephi-Chan/Conquest-on-Rails) and I want to add tests, but
it''s painful since objects have a lot of dependencies each other.
Hi Romain

I was just catching up on some old RSpec emails and found this.

I had a quick look through your code and noticed you have model specs but not
controller specs. What led you to skip writing specs for the controllers?
I''m just curious to see if there are common reasons for doing this (I
think it''s not uncommon).

Cheers
Ash

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashmoran