Just A Summary : Getting the Rspec religion

Comment on Getting the Rspec religion by Daniel Berger

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:17:08 -0600

I’m just not sold on that style of testing. The statements may be more english-like, but what it gains in verbs it loses in verbosity.

Looking at your two examples, I prefer the Test::Unit approach. :)

Comment on Getting the Rspec religion by Piers Cawley

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:37:27 -0600

Personally, I think verbosity, nay prolixity to be a virtue. Especially in the case of tests.

As I’ve been porting Typo’s unit tests to specs, I’ve certainly been finding that the

context "Given whatever" do
  setup {...}
  specify "something should be true" {...}
end

rhythm of working gets me thinking along helpful lines. Also, I’ve found myself splitting single tests into a context and a set of specifications, and those cases are definitely more readable.

Comment on Getting the Rspec religion by David Chelimsky

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:18:21 -0600

It’s great to hear that you’re getting some mileage (or kilometer-age???) out of rspec! Sorry to hear that you feel forced to convert your entire suite, though I’m sure it’s a great exercise and look forward to reading more about your observations.

The problem you describe (of only being able to run one or the other) has gone away w/ the current version of rspec_on_rails. If you don’t want to upgrade right now, just clean out the init.rb file. The stuff it requires should get required by your spec_helper.rb instead (probably already does). That way rspec only gets loaded when you’re running specs. When you’re running tests it doesn’t, so no conflict.

Cheers, David