On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:15 pm, David Chelimsky wrote: > re: Integration testing, everybody has a different definition. Before Rails > came along, the prevalent definition that I was aware of was "testing the > behaviour of two non-trivial components together." > > More recently, the definition that makes most sense to me comes from Growing > Object Oriented Software [1]. I don't have the book in front of me, but from > memory it is something like "testing your code with other code that you don't > have any control over." Because we need a database for all levels of Rails > testing, this suggests that all Rails testing is Integration Testing.
And yet, JB Rainsberger sticks absolutely uncompromisingly to the first definition[1]. I wonder if you could take it to yet another extreme and include tests for objects with private methods as "integration tests". The thing I got most from GOOS is to protect all domain code with adapters. If all Rails testing is integration testing, that means a lot of duplication and coupling that could be reduced... I have yet to do it for real though. But GOOS is the book that convinced me it's worth trying. Ashley [1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/integration-tests-scam -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
