Thanks, David. I do often read the rspec list because of the discussions that you site. The community maybe enough for me to make the jump. I can't wait to be able to use RSpec and Test::Unit together as a single cohesive framework. I'll keep working my side project with RSpec and see what ideas I can come up with. At work I will continue to use Shoulda, Test::Unit, and Webrat. We'll see what ideas can be ported around. I'll also take a look at the book.
I've worked on Webrat::Selenium and grid support a bit so let's see where this can take me. Thanks for the ideas from everyone, and you've all encouraged me to take a deeper look. Amos(adkron) On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:08 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Amos King <amos.l.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wasn't thinking about a gun. I was just wondering if there is some >> underlying reason that I'm missing. Is there a background structure >> that I'm not grasping? Is there a huge piece of functionality that >> I'm missing? Is it faster than Test:Unit or Shoulda? > > RSpec is not just about RSpec. It's about BDD. It's about encouraging > conversation about testing and looking at it in different ways. It's > about illuminating the design, specification, collaboration and > documentation aspects of tests, and thinking of them as executable > examples of behaviour. You can do this all without RSpec, but RSpec > aims to help with innovations like: > > * strings as example group names > * strings as example names > * pending examples > * nested groups for flexible organization > * should[_not] + matchers (inspired by hamcrest - a java library) > * one matcher supports both positive and negative expectations > * improved failure messages > * flexible/readable/customizable output formats > * built-in mocking framework > * plain text scenarios (now in Cucumber) > > Specifically with Rails: > > * component isolation. ZenTest offered separate test cases for > models/views/helpers/controllers before RSpec, and RSpec extended the > idea by allowing you to run controller examples with no dependency on > views and vice versa. Some folks get nervous with that sort of > isolation, but, generally, folks coming to Ruby from a background in > TDD with Java or .NET are all over it. > > That's not the full list, but a good overview. You can get some of > these things from other frameworks, but they almost all originated in > RSpec, which has been and will continue to be a center of innovation > in testing in Ruby since its creation in 2005. > > To be clear, it is certainly not the only center of innovation. > Shoulda brought us macros, which are great, and we've made it easier > to write your own in RSpec, and now you can use shoulda matchers right > in RSpec. > > Micronaut adds a tagging system that allows you to group examples > together in different ways. This is definitely something we'll be > adding to RSpec sooner or later. > > Ryan Davis and Eric Hodel continue to bring us game-changing testing > tools like autotest, heckle, flog, and flay. > > RSpec has been around for nearly 4 years now. It has matured quite a > bit, and continues to do so. A twitter poll back in January suggests > that the majority of people doing testing in Ruby are using RSpec: > http://twtpoll.com/r/zhh2fm. Note that this poll pits RSpec against > all other frameworks and it still gets the majority. Polls are polls, > and in a community of over a million Ruby developers, it's hard (for > me) to believe in the accuracy of a poll that 680ish ppl voted in. But > hey, that's 360-ish ppl who are at least willing to say they use > rspec, so at least we know that much :) > > The point being that with a lot of users comes a lot of mindshare. And > as RSpec continues to mature and become easier to contribute to, that > mindshare will grow. More and more extension libraries like > rspec_on_rails_on_crack and remarkable will emerge, and RSpec will get > better and better at supporting them. It won't be long before "rspec > OR test/unit" becomes a false choice, and you'll be able to seamlessly > use both in a unified suite. This is already largely the case, but it > will get better. > > And let's not forget http://rubyspec.org/ > > As for which tools to use, you should use the ones that make you happy > and make your job and life easier. If there is something that you like > about shoulda over rspec, then use shoulda. If prefer kickin' it old > school, stick w/ test/unit or minitest. Regardless of the tools you > use, I'd recommend that you pay attention to RSpec and its community. > There is a lot of action here. > > I'd also recommend that you read The RSpec Book. While the material in > the book is taught through RSpec, and much of the book is very > RSpec-specific, there is quite a bit of exploration of the process of > BDD that can be applied regardless of toolset. Not to mention > introduction to other tools like Cucumber, Webrat and Selenium. > > Thanks for the thought provoking question. I've been involved with > RSpec since shortly after its creation in 2005, and I sometimes lose > sight of why I got into it and why I stay with it. This has been a > helpful reminder to me, and I hope you find my ramblings helpful to > you. > > Cheers, > David > >> >> Amos(adkron) >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:01 AM, doug livesey <biot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think it's that RSpec encodes some of the latest BDD into its way of >>> thinking. >>> It has a vocabulary that encourages that, so in a way, yes, it's all about >>> semantics. >>> Semantics that encourage agile thinking & practice. >>> Also, it allows you to structure your specs (that become your regression >>> tests) in a much more intuitive way than Test::Unit -- I don't know Shoulda. >>> But if I understood all the pros & cons of two systems & preferred another, >>> I'd use that -- there's no gun against anyone's head. ;) >>> Doug. >>> >>> 2009/4/22 Saturn <saturn.st...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> I am also having same question that i can't find the reason why i >>>> should go for RSpec instead of Test/Unit. >>>> There is no compelling reason / advantage offered by RSpec except >>>> semantics. >>>> >>>> >>>> Is RSpec all about different syntax??????? >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for clarifying it??? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Amos King >> http://dirtyInformation.com >> http://github.com/Adkron >> -- >> Looking for something to do? Visit http://ImThere.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Amos King http://dirtyInformation.com http://github.com/Adkron -- Looking for something to do? Visit http://ImThere.com _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
