Hey!
I have implemented a quick solution for the should != … , should !
~ … ‘problem’.
It uses source code inspection (I think it’s the only way) and i’ve
done some
benchmarking to see if it’s really that slow.
A direct comparison of
running ‘1.should == 1’
with the unmodified rspec source against the rspec-version with
source inspect
shows that the latter is 7 times slower … 
But benchmarks with ‘1.should == 1’ inside a real example file are
showing ‘only’
an overall speed decrease of 15% to 50%. That is still bad but having
lots of people
consider the passing of ‘1.should != 1’ an rspec bug is bad too.
Here is the benchmarking script:
http://pastie.caboo.se/206853
And the code is at branch ‘inspect’ in:
git://github.com/mhennemeyer/rspec
There are examples for should and should_not != and !~ and i will
definitely work on performance if you not totally reject this whole
idea.
Matthias.
Very cool. Maybe we could print a warning when people use !=. That
would let us get the ugly != bug fixed, but not have the perf issues.
Pat
On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David C. wrote:
A direct comparison of
RSpec is already getting dinged for being slower than test/unit.
Making it run any slower than it already does is a deal breaker for
me.
Maybe using autoloading instead of requiring would help the situation?
It seems perfectly reasonable that rspec is bigger than test/unit:
Test::Unit doesn’t have a mocking framework, and so on. On the other
hand, if no one uses (rspec’s) mocking framework, should rspec have
the code in place anyway?
Anyway - I’ve never found it to be too slow. Has anyone done
benchmarks on it?
Scott
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Hennemeyer wrote:
with the unmodified rspec source against the rspec-version with
source inspect
shows that the latter is 7 times slower …
But benchmarks with ‘1.should == 1’ inside a real example file are
showing ‘only’
an overall speed decrease of 15% to 50%. That is still bad but
having lots of people
consider the passing of ‘1.should != 1’ an rspec bug is bad too.
RSpec is already getting dinged for being slower than test/unit.
Making it run any slower than it already does is a deal breaker for me.
Here is the benchmarking script:
Parked at Loopia
And the code is at branch ‘inspect’ in:
git://github.com/mhennemeyer/rspec
There are examples for should and should_not != and !~ and i will
definitely work on performance if you not totally reject this whole
idea.
If you can get the performance up to or better than current, I’m all
for it.
Cheers,
David
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Scott T.
[email protected]
wrote:
if no one uses (rspec’s) mocking framework, should rspec have the code in
place anyway?
I spoke up on the code size issue some months ago:
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles/2008/01/29/why-i-dont-mind-using-rspec-in-fact-ive-come-to-love-it
As for whether or not the rspec mocking framework should be separately
loadable, that’s a separate question.
Anyway - I’ve never found it to be too slow. Has anyone done benchmarks on
it?
Like most other things, how slow or fast depends on how you use it. Here
at
@work, we have a really large rails app with a mixture of legacy tests
and
new specs. The slowest part of the overall test/spec suite, by far, is
the
legacy functional tests, which we hope to gradually convert to
controller
and view specs, using mocking as possible to avoid the db overhead,
which is
the real culprit.
–
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Am 02.06.2008 um 20:01 schrieb Pat M.:
What about showing an ugly warning in the test runner? != is a funky
edge case that can really bite people. It’d be nice to have it fixed,
but then tell the programmer to change it to == because of
performance.
Pat
The performance is much better now - but that warning thing is
interesting.
I think people should be able to decide if they use != or not and
there should be an option that, when applied, turns out warnings and
enables ‘negative operator expectations’.
One more word on performance: It is possible to see the difference in
performance of both
versions (with source inspect and without).
But only if you run benchmarks that are exclusivley designed for this
purpose.
Running the rspec spec suite for both versions doesn’t show any
difference.
Matthias
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:
A direct comparison of
RSpec is already getting dinged for being slower than test/unit. Making it
run any slower than it already does is a deal breaker for me.
What about showing an ugly warning in the test runner? != is a funky
edge case that can really bite people. It’d be nice to have it fixed,
but then tell the programmer to change it to == because of
performance.
Pat