> If you were to rename deposit to credit, and withdraw to debit
I'm more concerned with adding a parameter or changing the default value of a
parameter. My fear is that given enough time and size there will be a fair
number of inconsistent mocks or mocks that aren't doing any real testing. It
On Jan 11, 2008 5:11 PM, Jay Donnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The thing is that, ideally, you don't want to have to make changes to
> >> the tests for object A when you're refactoring B.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
>
> > Yeah, I buy that. Not everyone does though. Or at least not everyone
> > feels th
>> The thing is that, ideally, you don't want to have to make changes to
>> the tests for object A when you're refactoring B.
>>
>> WDYT?
> Yeah, I buy that. Not everyone does though. Or at least not everyone
> feels that it's a particularly important goal.
I think the fear many of us classicis
On Jan 11, 2008 1:48 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:43 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't have any problem with that. I do things that way, and I get
> > my work done just fine. However, I'm having a tough time clarifying
> > my position when
On Jan 11, 2008 3:43 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to hijack this a bit :)
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 1:25 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But the target of stories are system level descriptions of behaviour.
> > This will inevitably appear to have some overl
I'm going to hijack this a bit :)
On Jan 11, 2008 1:25 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But the target of stories are system level descriptions of behaviour.
> This will inevitably appear to have some overlap with the specs for
> the outermost layers of the system. But when you s
On Jan 11, 2008, at 7:31 AM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:27 PM, James Deville wrote:
>
>> We have a custom implementation of the Mother Object idea. It's
>> inside
>> of a module, basically like this:
>>
>> module Factory
>> %w(account friendship person invitation message
On Jan 11, 2008 3:16 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A couple months ago I asked how stories and specs might impact each
> other. [1]If you look at Dan North's example of what's in a story
> [2], and you imagine using the spec framework to drive the design, you
> can probably imagin
A couple months ago I asked how stories and specs might impact each
other. [1]If you look at Dan North's example of what's in a story
[2], and you imagine using the spec framework to drive the design, you
can probably imagine a significant bit of overlap in the two. Is that
a bad thing? I'm n
On Jan 11, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> In TDD there is a rule of thumb that says don't stub a method in the
>> same class as the method you're testing. The risk is that as the real
>> implementation of by_input_sets!() changes over tim
On Jan 11, 2008 11:33 AM, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't specific to RSpec, but is hopefully on-topic for this list.
>
> I like (especially when "ping pong pairing") to write a spec, then
> write the smallest amount of code I can to pass it (especially when
> "ping pong pairi
On Jan 11, 2008 12:56 PM, Cody P. Skidmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you Zach. I was just about to ask about this. I'm just getting
> started with restful_authentication and have missed the context of your
> point. restful_authentication is such a huge improvement over what I'm
> use to
Thank you Zach. I was just about to ask about this. I'm just getting
started with restful_authentication and have missed the context of your
point. restful_authentication is such a huge improvement over what I'm
use to.
Could you elaborate just a little on the use context in controllers? Is
th
To add, all of our managers return LoginResult objects which contain
methods like:
- successful?
- user
- message
In the controller our code will look like:
if login.successful?
self.current_user = login.user
else
flash[:error] = login.message
end
This has worked well because it allows e
We pass the required items in as method arguments. In the spirit of
sharing code and getting people to review code. Here is our current
LoginManager:
class LoginManager
include Injection
inject :invitation_manager
def login_from_cookie(cookies, session)
CookieLoginManager.new(
:co
Zach Dennis wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 2008 9:54 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>
In TDD there is a rule of thumb that says don't stub a method in the
same class as
On Jan 11, 2008 11:40 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2008 9:54 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > David Chelimsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In TDD there is a rule of thumb that says do
On Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 9:54 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Chelimsky wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > In TDD there is a rule of thumb that says don't stub a method in the
> > > same class as the method you're testing. The r
On Jan 11, 2008 11:36 AM, Tim Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> very cool.
>
> Funny enough, I never knew this functionality even existed - it was
> just getting clobbered all this time.
It's only in the last release or two.
> Now I see ~10 files that actually need specs, which were totally
> get
very cool.
Funny enough, I never knew this functionality even existed - it was
just getting clobbered all this time.
Now I see ~10 files that actually need specs, which were totally
getting missed before!
thanks,
tim
On 11-Jan-08, at 10:56 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 9:52 A
On Jan 11, 2008 9:54 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> >
> >
> > In TDD there is a rule of thumb that says don't stub a method in the
> > same class as the method you're testing. The risk is that as the real
> > implementation of by_input_sets!() changes over time,
On Jan 11, 2008 10:19 AM, Jonathan Linowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 5:50 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > Apparently, Pat and I are twins separated at birth.
>
> Would it then be correct to refactor and eliminate one of them??
If you could argue that we were ultimately co
We're clearly at green!
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008, at 5:50 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> Apparently, Pat and I are twins separated at birth.
>
>
> Would it then be correct t
On Jan 11, 2008, at 5:50 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Apparently, Pat and I are twins separated at birth.
Would it then be correct to refactor and eliminate one of them??
:))
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org
On Jan 11, 2008 9:52 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 9:45 AM, Tim Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > since i'm on rspec trunk, I applied your patch and ran into a little
> > issue. All my specs still run but it seems to be looking at and
> > "attempting" all of my
David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
> In TDD there is a rule of thumb that says don't stub a method in the
> same class as the method you're testing. The risk is that as the real
> implementation of by_input_sets!() changes over time, it has access to
> internal state that could impact the behaviour of deco
On Jan 11, 2008 9:45 AM, Tim Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> since i'm on rspec trunk, I applied your patch and ran into a little
> issue. All my specs still run but it seems to be looking at and
> "attempting" all of my hidden files and directories (and some other
> stuff too?):
>
> Dunno! Capf
since i'm on rspec trunk, I applied your patch and ran into a little
issue. All my specs still run but it seems to be looking at and
"attempting" all of my hidden files and directories (and some other
stuff too?):
Dunno! Capfile
Dunno! app/helpers/.svn/format
Dunno! app/views/sales/.svn/text
On Jan 11, 2008 5:23 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Daniel Tenner:
> >
> > > Might be a personal thing, but my approach is that I try to test the
> > > public behaviour of the object. Testing private m
On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:27 PM, James Deville wrote:
> We have a custom implementation of the Mother Object idea. It's inside
> of a module, basically like this:
>
> module Factory
> %w(account friendship person invitation message asset email_address
> birth).each do |klass|
> ev
On Jan 11, 2008 8:04 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> One run of by_input_sets!() takes a couple of seconds, so can
> >> be tested; one run of decompose!() takes much lo
David Chelimsky:
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One run of by_input_sets!() takes a couple of seconds, so can
>> be tested; one run of decompose!() takes much longer, so to test
>> decompose!() I should stub by_input_sets!() so it returns canned
>
On 11 Jan 2008, at 10:50, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 4:48 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Apparently, Pat and I are twins separated at birth.
Thanks both!
Kerry
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
h
On Jan 11, 2008 2:50 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 4:48 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 11, 2008 2:33 AM, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This isn't specific to RSpec, but is hopefully on-topic for this list.
> > >
> > > I
On Jan 11, 2008 4:48 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 2:33 AM, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This isn't specific to RSpec, but is hopefully on-topic for this list.
> >
> > I like (especially when "ping pong pairing") to write a spec, then
> > write the sm
On Jan 11, 2008 4:33 AM, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't specific to RSpec, but is hopefully on-topic for this list.
>
> I like (especially when "ping pong pairing") to write a spec, then
> write the smallest amount of code I can to pass it (especially when
> "ping pong pairin
On Jan 11, 2008 2:33 AM, Kerry Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't specific to RSpec, but is hopefully on-topic for this list.
>
> I like (especially when "ping pong pairing") to write a spec, then
> write the smallest amount of code I can to pass it (especially when
> "ping pong pairin
This isn't specific to RSpec, but is hopefully on-topic for this list.
I like (especially when "ping pong pairing") to write a spec, then
write the smallest amount of code I can to pass it (especially when
"ping pong pairing"). Sometimes this means hard-coding a return value,
which means ano
On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Tenner:
>
> > 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 do
> > Does the plain text story framework support teardowns? There doesn't
> seem to
> > be anywhere to put an "after" method. My stories test an application
> which
> > parses and modifies a directory tree, which is currently generated in
> a
> > Given-clause, and I want it to be deleted after each
On Jan 11, 2008 10:53 AM, Andreas Axelsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Does the plain text story framework support teardowns? There doesn't seem to
> be anywhere to put an "after" method. My stories test an application which
> parses and modifies a directory tree, which is currently genera
Does the plain text story framework support teardowns? There doesn't seem to be
anywhere to put an "after" method. My stories test an application which parses
and modifies a directory tree, which is currently generated in a Given-clause,
and I want it to be deleted after each story. (I don't min
Daniel Tenner:
> 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 it does.
I agree on principle, but I ran into th
43 matches
Mail list logo
