Nat points out that problems with Object Mother arise when people
start adding factory methods to deal with the edge cases, such as
ObjectMother.new_invoice_with_no_postal_code. I totally agree that
this would be a problem since such abstraction results in hard to
follow tests (this is why I hate fixtures actually). From the
projects I have worked on I haven't seen the Object Mother libs
abused this way and they are used more like a Test Data Builder.
The only difference I see is in implementation, meaning the ruby
libs tend to group all the factory methods on one object or module
just like Object Mother, while the pattern Nat describes uses a
separate builder class for each object. I think this is really just
details though and results from Ruby's differences from Java.
Any thoughts? Are Ruby's Object Mothers really Test Data Builders?
Yeah, at least FixtureReplacement takes that stance, which is why I
didn't call "Object Mother"
Scott
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
