On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
Anyone knows what is the reasoning to separate unit tests and specs in
Rails? Is there a good argument for separating them in
Java/Scala/Groovy/...?
Specs are specs, tests are tests, not the same thing (see other e-mail
I just sent). The same argument applies to Java, Scala, Groovy, even
FORTRAN (yes, they do have a TDD framework for FORTRAN, and it's
compiled using Rake).
And I'll throw in a twist. Do you run unit tests first, then
specs? Or
vice-versa? Does it matter?
Doesn't really matter. When we do a Buildr release we run them first
as tests on JRuby to make sure we didn't break anything, and a second
time as specs on Ruby to also produce the HTML specification.
Assaf
alex
On 2/22/08, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd go for src/test because, even if specs are changing the way we
test,
it's still test. If tomorrow a new nice testing library comes up
with new
testing concepts are we going to create its own src/foo directory
as well?
Matthieu
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Victor Hugo Borja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
Another one to
look at is JBehave, although I can't tell if they have any
conventions for directory structure.
Haven't used JBehave, IIRC the
jbehave.rb[1]<
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12376069/jbehave.rb
from
John Layton just searches for *
Behaviour.class, compiled from src/test/java
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-49
--
vic
Quaerendo invenietis.
