On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Glenn Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:03 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > Again - this is a matter of granularity. The whole point of having > > granular examples is to enable you to make changes to the system > > easily via refactoring. Sometimes refactoring requires moving examples > > around along with the implementation code. This is refactoring 101 > > stuff, and an accepted part of the refactoring process in all of my > > experience prior to working in Ruby. It's only people in the Ruby > > community that I see expressing this concern. I think it's because the > > refactoring tools for Java and C# are superior, so they automate a lot > > of the granular steps you need to take when refactoring manually. > > > > The problem with decreasing the granularity is that it makes fault > > isolation more difficult. It means less work right now for lots more > > work down the road. > > Perhaps my example simplified my problem too much. The chore that I > was referring to unfortunately wasn't about refactoring. I wish it > had been that easy! Instead it was really the behavior that got > transfered, but the logic and code was quite different. The goal was > to ensure the end result was still the same, that way I would know I > hadn't broken anything but still had the new structure that I needed. > Without my specs covering the resulting state I would have had no > guidance to help me here.
>From Fowler: "Refactoring is the process of changing a software system in such a way that it does not alter the external behaviour of the code yet improves its internal structure." Sounds like what you are describing is exactly that, no? David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
