Re: [PhillyOnRails] rspec slides

["Colin A. Bartlett" <phillyonrails@colinabartlett.com>]

Cassius Rosenthal wrote:
> My conclusion --which I hope Colin will comment on-- is that rSpec has 
> many drawbacks, but we should all be using it anyway.  Disadvantages 
> of rSpec/BDD:
> * breaks DRY, which is also a Rails convention
How does it break DRY?
> * slows development for experienced coders
Writing tests may add marginal more time to the initial coding but saves 
mountains of time squashing bugs later.
> * does not suggest good tests
Not sure I follow. Use RCov and Heckle to check if your tests are good.
> * differentiation between 'good' and 'bad' test is not implied by syntax
Not sure I follow. What's a bad test? A test (spec, really) that just 
test's ActiveRecord functions is lame because ActiveRecord is already 
heavily tested. Other then that, what is there?
> * model tests seems solid, but controller tests seem excessive 
> (map.resoures.should_not be_trusted =>?), and view tests don't seem 
> meaningful
I've got no problems with controller tests. And you don't need to spec 
you entire view. Just the stuff that's business-relevant. How about a 
test that makes sure @credit_cards.display_all isn't run unless you're 
logged in as an Admin? Or, don't spec your views at all. Some specs is 
better then no specs.
> * trivial changes to schema often will require non-trivial changes to 
> model specs
I'm not sure that's true. But trivial changes to a schema can kill your 
app. Dead app = unhappy client. Accurate specs = Happy client.
> * doesn't offer integration tests, although you can simulate them -- 
> documentation suggests using selenium instead of RSpec
It's got 'em now. Haven't tried it but Story Runner sounds cool:
http://evang.eli.st/blog/2007/9/1/user-stories-with-rspec-s-story-runner


--
Colin A. Bartlett
Kinetic Web Solutions
http://blog.kineticweb.com

_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.phillyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/talk