Amos King wrote:
I like Shoulda. Sometimes I like plain old Test::Unit. Cucumber
gives me a different thought process.
I'd just like to hear some thoughts on why RSpec? What does it buy me
that I can't get with Shoulda? I just can't seem to think in RSpec.
Where is there a good example of RSpec tests that will help me grasp
the right path?
RSpec is not DRY with respect to Test::Unit. A bit of "not invented here".
RSpec's original incarnation should have been like test-spec. I suspect new
syntax built within Test::Unit would have save us from tedious hours of
reinventing all the test fixtures (such as the mock @request and @response for
Rails).
The only design point for the new syntax I can see is this:
context 'general' do
setup{ general }
specify{ something general }
specify{ another general thing }
context 'specific' do
setup{ specific }
specify{ test general and specific together }
specify{ test specific and general together! }
end
end
The alternative in TestCase was only either a setup() that builds both 'general'
and 'specific', when two cases don't need it, or duplicating 'specific' into two
test cases, or merging the 'specific' setup into a global 'assemble_specific'
method yadda yadda yadda. Nesting the contexts lets them share their setups, so
the contexts are much easier to mix and match.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/resume.html
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
