On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
<li...@ruby-forum.com>wrote:
> David Kahn wrote in post #968465:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser
> > <li...@ruby-forum.com>wrote:
> >
> >> > fine. I tried placing "require 'shoulda'" in test helper to no avail,
> >> > but
> >> > when I run the debugger and type Shoulda, the object is found.
> >>
> >> What's the point of using RSpec and Shoulda together? I thought all
> >> Shoulda did was give an RSpec-like syntax to Test::Unit.
> >>
> >> Come to think of it, what's the point of using Shoulda (instead of
> >> RSpec) at all?
> >>
> >
> > Well,
> > I like that I can include it in Test/Unit.
> > Not really into the .should and the argument that it makes tests
> > readable...
>
> So you're saying you don't think that
> value.should == 3
> is more readable than
> assert_equal 3, value
> ?
>
> First of all, I can't imagine how the English-like syntax *isn't* the
> more readable; second, if that's so, then why are you using Shoulda at
> all.
>
> > just does not feel necessary to me.
>
> I assure you, it is necessary. The assert_ syntax of Test::Unit lends
> itself to writing unreadable, implementation-focused tests. RSpec-style
> "should" syntax encourages you to think about behavior, as well as
> keeping the code more readable.
>
> I really don't know why anyone would voluntarily choose Test::Unit,
> unless it be inertia.
>
> > I like the "should ....." vs "argument.should be_nil" or the like. Just
> > reads better to me.
>
> I just looked up Shoulda's documentation to see the differences. I
> don't see how you can seriously claim that Shoulda reads better than
> RSpec. The use of the word "should" simply appears to be poorly copied
> from RSpec without serious thought about the semantics -- as evidenced
> by the fact that "should" can't begin an assertion in English or RSpec,
> but can in Shoulda. Yuck!
>
>
> > One less DSL to use (arguably)
>
> Argument lost. It's still a DSL, just a poorly designed one. So use a
> better designed one. That means RSpec.
>
> > One of the things I really like in Shoulda that I have seen so far are
> > the
> > matchers... things like:
> >
> > it { should belong_to(:contact) }
> > it { should have_many(:addresses) }
> > it { should validate_presence_of(:address) }
> > it { should allow_value('55416').for(:zip) }
> > it { should_not allow_value('554316').for(:zip) }
> >
> > I think these are very cool... and save a lot of time. This is what made
> > me
> > look into shoulda.
>
> Then IMHO you are using Shoulda for entirely the wrong reasons.
>
> > Does Rspec have these/similar?
>
> RSpec has many similar methods. Not the ones you quoted above, exactly,
> but those would be easy to write.
>
And where would I learn about them? Perhaps I missed it but even in the
Rspec book I dont see any mention of such coolness. I know I can use shoulda
with rspec and get its helpers but if you know some specifics that Rspec
does this as concisely --- like validation and associations if you can point
me in the right direction I would appreciate it... that way I will forget
about shoulda.
>
> > I think the documentation is better for Shoulda, not that this means
> > everything but is important.
>
> Haven't looked at the Shoulda docs in detail, so can't comment.
>
> > And Shoulda gives me what I consider the best feature of Rspec - the
> > grouping syntax (describe... it ....).... that is the one thing to date
> > that
> > I felt I would miss of empirical value by not using Rspec.
> >
> > So why not? What am I missing?
>
> Almost everything, apparently. :) Shoulda seems to me to be a cheap
> knockoff of RSpec with less readable and less well thought out syntax,
> and improper semantics. Why use the cheap knockoff when you could use
> the real thing?
>
> Have you even tried RSpec?
>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koser
> http://www.marnen.org
> mar...@marnen.org
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> --
> 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<rubyonrails-talk%2bunsubscr...@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.
