Yet another way to do fixtures/factories is a hybrid that I outline in my blog, its basically what I do.
http://blog.wolfman.com/posts/42 Basically I can't use the existing libraries as I am not using ActiveRecord. On Feb 5, 8:17 am, Ben Mabey <b...@benmabey.com> wrote: > David Chelimsky wrote: > > I highly recommend this blog post by Jay Fields: > >http://blog.jayfields.com/2009/02/thoughts-on-developer-testing.html > > > Cheers, > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-us...@rubyforge.org > >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > Great post. Very down to earth and realistic. > > This post raised a question for me. Jay talks about how the pattern > Object Mother gave way to Test Data Builders. I use Fixjour ("Word to > your object mother")[1], and other similar projects in my apps to > provide a set of sane default attributes for my models. You can then > easily override those defaults by passing in a hash with the values that > you need for the test. After reading Nat's post about Object Mother vs > Test Data Builders[2] , I have come to the conclusion that the "Object > Mother" libs that are popular in ruby land (i.e. Fixjour, Factory Girl) > are really more in line with the Test Data Builder pattern. Does > everyone agree with this conclusion or am I missing something? It may > be that I just use it differently, but according to Nat's post Test > Builders provide a sane set of defaults that you can then explicitly > override like so: > > Invoice invoiceWithNoPostcode = new InvoiceBuilder() > .withRecipient(new RecipientBuilder() > .withAddress(new AddressBuilder() > .withNoPostcode() > .build()) > .build()) > .build(); > > Well.. this looks a lot like what I do in Ruby (but a lot more verbose): > > invoice_with_no_postcode = new_invoice(:recipient => > new_recipient(:address => new_address(:postcode => nil))) > > 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? > > -Ben > > 1.http://github.com/nakajima/fixjour/tree/master > 2.http://nat.truemesh.com/archives/000714.html > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
