On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Amos King <amos.l.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You can run test/unit & rspec together already.
All you need to do is: require "spec/interop/test" before your spec definitions. Here is an example: http://gist.github.com/99895 The shoulda integration did not work, however > > 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 _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
