El 17/10/2007, a las 7:26, "Pat Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Well, you'll find differing opinions on this. Every time I've done > validations I've written a spec that actually exercises the behavior. > For example > > class Person < ActiveRecord::Base > validates_presence_of :name > end > > describe Person do > it "should not be valid without a name" do > p = Person.new > p.should_not be_valid > p.errors.on(:name).should == "can't be blank" > end > end > > As far as I'm concerned, that's specifying the behavior. A person > without a name is not valid, and it results in an error message on > name. Doing it the way we've discussed in this thread is ugly and > stupid, imo. I agree that you'll find many opinions on this. My personal take is that you should be testing the behaviour, not testing that the "validates..." method was called. Why? Because while this is fine for a simple validation like validates_presence_of, it can fall down for complex validations with :on, :if, and other clauses. The problem is that it is fairly easy to write a complex validation that doesn't actually do what you think it does. Testing that you set it up gives you very little in that case; you should be testing that it *does* what you think it does. You are not testing ActiveRecord in this case (it's well tested); you are testing that your use of ActiveRecord gives you the desired behaviour. And as has already been pointed out, you can write a custom matcher to make such oft-used specs easy to write. My own take on this is here: <http://wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/10/ custom_validation_matcher.php> Compare this with attr_accesible. That's much simpler; it takes a list of symbols. It is much harder to make a mistake. In that case I think it's fine to mock the call and just check that your code does the attr_accessible call. But having said that, seeing as testing the behaviour directly is so simple (just try mass assigning and see if it worked or not) I just test the behaviour anyway and forget about the mock+load trick. Cheers, Wincent _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
