On Dec 2, 2009, at 6:20 PM, s.ross wrote: > The primary difference between -- say -- rSpec and Test::Unit is > syntactical. However, the specification of how something "should > behave" puts you in a different frame of mind than testing that > something *did* behave that way. Consider this: > > it "should have 10 records" do > MyModel.create(:amount => 40.50, :tax_rate => 0.10) > MyModel.first.tax.should ==(4.50) # forget, for the moment, > floating point inaccuracy
.should == 4.05 # floating point isn't *THAT* bad ;-) > end > > This is specifying the behavior that a $40.50 purchase taxed at 10% > should set a "tax" attribute in the model to $4.50. The Test::Unit > alternative is to assert that this happened. E.g.: > > MyModel.create(:amount => 40.50, :tax_rate => 0.10) > assert_equal(4.50, MyModel.first.tax) > > Ultimately, you are: > > 1) Unit testing > > and > > 2) Doing the exact same thing with somewhat different syntax > > Personally, I read and write the rSpec syntax more naturally than > Test::Unit, but it's a matter of taste. > > Now, if you go to Cucumber or Rails Integration testing, you are > moving away from unit testing to more end-to-end behavioral testing. > My personal opinion is that they are both important for a project of > any scale, but writing the scenarios for Cuke first and the unit > tests to drive the features out is the most natural way to do it. > > Hope this helps > > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Christoph Jasinski wrote: > >> Thanks for the replies. >> >> I fired that question cause I bought a bunch of BDDCasts from >> (bddcasts.com) and the first thing they did when bootstrapping the >> application, was to delete the test folder. So that and the first >> chapter of the book (mentioned above) got me thinking that bdd >> replaces unit testing as it is focusing on behaviour which is in >> total contrast to unit tests which focuses on . Sure, you still >> could test in both directions but somehow that idea sounded like a >> lot of work. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> . > > > -- > > 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- > t...@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 > . Rob Biedenharn http://agileconsultingllc.com r...@agileconsultingllc.com +1 513-295-4739 Skype: rob.biedenharn -- 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-t...@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.
