RSpec is for BDD, like FIT or FITnesse.
I would not say that FIT is a BDD tool, at least the way I understand
It's for communicating with your
business-side analysts about all your features.
No. That's what a tool like FITnesse or Cucumber is for. Perhaps your
usage patterns are different, but for me at least, RSpec is for
describing the behavior of modules, but at a much more technical level
than business-side analysts would be interested in. I can't see using
RSpec for business-domain tests at all!
For raw development, it
clutter to the syntax without adding much new innovation to the test
How so? I use RSpec for all raw development, largely for two reasons:
* I like the syntax.
* I like the focus on external interface rather than (Test::Unit's
orientation toward?) internal behavior.
Where's the clutter? I really don't understand. Test::Unit feels *far*
more cluttered to me, or did the last time I tried it.
And, yes, all the developers are eating it up like popcorn...
Sure! It's fun to use.
And it bears repeating that TDD requires writing new tests and
_watching_them_fail_, before adding the tested code. Don't just go write
test and then write the code. Don't write the code and then get around
testing what you got. Only write new code in response to failing tests.
I agree wholeheartedly (although in practice I'm not always as good at
this as I should be).
I _enjoy_ their fragility (in their current incarnation). It forces you
review your tests.
I *really* don't understand this. Could you clarify?
If anything in TDD is fragile, or leads to too much debugging (p
revert and try again.
Doesn't this contradict the previous sentence?
TDD makes fragility an asset.
Doesn't *this* contradict the previous sentence?
Again, use the database to provide ready-made objects, and TDD your
statements at the db. The decoupling will come, and "don't hit the db in
testing" is all but a myth. (Darn you, Mike Feathers!)
It's probably a very good general idea (or ideal), but Rails
ActiveRecord is too intimate with the DB to make it practical. I *do*
think it's worth not having the tests *overly* dependent on the DB,
<sarcasm>But Jay Fields says that Rails tests shouldn't touch the DB.
That's reason enough to agree with you that it's a myth.</sarcasm>
Writing tests is easy when you know how to write them and which tools to
Remember to have fun. If you are not having fun (even writing tests)
then something is wrong.
Yep. Tests should be easier and easier to write, until you feel guilty
they must not be doing anything for you.
I like that. But Master Phlip, I still think my tests are
significant...I guess I have not yet achieved enlightenment!