On Jan 9, 2008 5:26 AM, Richard Conroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 7:14 PM, Daniel Tenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Might be a personal thing, but my approach is that I try to test the
> > public behaviour of the object. Testing private methods is, imho,
> > getting dangerously
On Jan 8, 2008 11:25 AM, Matt Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2008, at 19:14, Daniel Tenner wrote:
>
>
> > Might be a personal thing, but my approach is that I try to test the
> > public behaviour of the object. Testing private methods is, imho,
> > getting dangerously close to spec
On Jan 8, 2008 3:56 PM, Francois Wurmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Olsen schrieb:
> > Will obj.send(:method) work in 1.9 or is it saying that the send call
> > requires 2 params, the method and the object reference?
> >
> obj.send(:method) will work for non-private methods and send! works f
This is also worth checking out:
http://xunitpatterns.com/
--
Bekk Open Source
http://boss.bekk.no
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Jan 9, 2008 7:26 AM, Richard Conroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 7:14 PM, Daniel Tenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Might be a personal thing, but my approach is that I try to test the
> > public behaviour of the object. Testing private methods is, imho,
> > getting dangerously
On Jan 8, 2008 7:14 PM, Daniel Tenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Might be a personal thing, but my approach is that I try to test the
> public behaviour of the object. Testing private methods is, imho,
> getting dangerously close to specifying how the object does its
> business, rather than what
On Jan 9, 2008 7:12 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2008/1/9, Kerry Buckley < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Jan 9, 2008 10:01 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > I totally agree with you, David!
> > >
> > > For quite a while I was testing all my metho
On Jan 9, 2008 6:09 AM, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 10:01 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I totally agree with you, David!
Then you agree with the majority of the TDD community.
> >
> > For quite a while I was testing all my methods (even had
Well, I think it all depends on the scenario - but in a lot of cases it
should absolutely be considered a code-smell.
Stefan
2008/1/9, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Jan 9, 2008 10:01 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I totally agree with you, David!
> >
> > For
On Jan 9, 2008 10:01 AM, Stefan Magnus Landrø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I totally agree with you, David!
>
> For quite a while I was testing all my methods (even had to declare them
> protected/package scope in java!), but I realized that I was getting into a
> lot of trouble. Now I've shifted t
Just to clarify, this is what I meant in my original email :-) Most
of my methods are very small - in Ruby any method longer than 5 lines
is, imho, a code smell that's waiting to be fixed. However, no matter
how many methods are used to implement the functionality, I test the
public behavio
I totally agree with you, David!
For quite a while I was testing all my methods (even had to declare them
protected/package scope in java!), but I realized that I was getting into a
lot of trouble. Now I've shifted to testing functionality in stead of
methods.
Now, sometimes you might end up havi
12 matches
Mail list logo
