On Sep 16, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Jay Levitt wrote: > I've been working on a Rails project with one other developer; he was > using Test::Unit, and I was using RSpec. That works OK for a > while, but > obviously it starts causing pain when you have to check in two > places to > see if a piece of code is properly tested/spec'd, you can't use > TextMate > shortcuts to switch back and forth between code and test, you have to > duplicate shared behaviors/test helpers, etc.
There are two developers currently on the project I'm working on. I was lucky enough to win it for two reasons: 1. I had written 100 specs before the other developer came on. There were 60 Test::Unit tests, and half of them were failing. 2. The docs are the real winner. Generate the HTML specdoc report for a buisness user who understands the details of the app. He will appreciate it, understand what *has* been tested, what has not *yet* been tested (or, better yet, what *has* been built, and what is still TODO, or pending). Test::Unit cannot show that, so when you say to the client "I want to spend some time testing," it doesn't translate into anything tangible for him. Plus, the specdoc is pretty! Scott _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
