On 14 May 2009, at 14:20, Phlip wrote:
Matt Wynne wrote:
I've got a reason. You're coupling the tests for this simple little
controller class to all the infrastructure and dependencies needed
to write the record to the database and reload it again. As easy as
Rails makes it for us to manage our database schemas, gratuitously
introducing dependencies in your code like this is a bad habit to
get into. It can lead to tests that are fragile to failing when
code is changed far away from the place they're apparently testing.
The tests also run slowly, which makes working on systems written
like this boring.
The point of unit tests (which include the alleged "functional
tests" in Rails) is to fail more often than production code would
fail. Not less often.
Yep, I agree that would be silly.
On the other hand, if the tests fail for no good reason all the time
because they're fragile, people may stop listening to them, and maybe
eventually stop writing them. The argument I'm making is really just
for slowing down and taking a little more care, with the eventual
benefit of tests that are trustworthy and easy to maintain. I would
imagine that's your goal too, but we apparently have different
approaches :)
Matt Wynne
http://beta.songkick.com
http://blog.mattwynne.net
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
