On Jan 11, 2008 3:43 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to hijack this a bit :) > > On Jan 11, 2008 1:25 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But the target of stories are system level descriptions of behaviour. > > This will inevitably appear to have some overlap with the specs for > > the outermost layers of the system. But when you start refactoring, > > those object specifications are going to change - the system specs > > (stories) should NOT. At least not as a result of refactoring. > > In the first thread I linked to, I said something along the lines of > "maybe stories are better for refactoring, since you don't have to > change them."
Keep in mind that in Java, where I think refactoring really grew in its formality as part of the process, the tools make the changes in your tests too. When you change a method signature the tool changes it everywhere. I don't recall, ever, seeing anyone complaining about having to change tests when refactoring in java. So this is a price we pay for the benefits of early adoption in our language of choice. > Examples, on the other hand, sometimes have to be > changed when refactoring, particularly if you use mocks. > > However, stories are probably too slow for refactoring, and some of > the problems with refactoring with examples are simply a matter of > lacking tool support, which should eventually be fixed. Right - missed this on the first read - that's what I'm talking about in the paragraph above. > > I don't have any problem with that. I do things that way, and I get > my work done just fine. However, I'm having a tough time clarifying > my position when talking to people who believe that unit tests should > not have to change when refactoring either. I don't think they're > wrong, actually. I do. If you read the refactoring book, every refactoring has a "now change all the clients" step - tests are clients that have to be changed. It's just part of the deal. The thing is that, ideally, you don't want to have to make changes to the tests for object A when you're refactoring B. WDYT? > It's just a different approach and I'd like to know > how to bridge that communication gap better. > > Pat > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
