bill walton wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 19:31 -0500, Jeff Schwab wrote:
>
>> What terms should I use for actual unit tests? Is it
>> sufficient to let context make the distinction clear,
>> or does my vocabulary still need a few more patches?
>
> IME, you'll do yourself and those around you a big favor if you adjust
> your vocabulary. What follows is one man's experience. YMMV.
Thanks for the guidance.
> Expect it
> to take time and effort for the team to adjust.
There's no team. Just me. I was asking for purposes of discussion in
fora like this one.
> BTW, in case it doesn't come through clearly, I disagree with your
> assessment that %q{"Integration" tests seem to retain the traditional
> meaning, and there are apparently no "view" tests.} All of Rails' tests
> fall into the 'traditional meaning' of Unit tests.
Unit and Functional tests sort of do. I should have been clearer: to
me, a Unit Test tests exactly one thing.
> "View" tests in
> Rails are accomplished via Integration tests.
By "view tests," I meant "traditional unit tests of views." If an
integration test fails, by definition, you don't immediately know which
component (if any) was at fault. If a traditional unit test of a view
failed, you would know the view (or the test) was broken.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
