Textmate RSpec Bundle 'it' snippet

It seems to me that the RSpec bundle’s ‘it’ snippet is in need of some
love. By default, a newly inserted spec passes. This seems odd as it
is misleading. It also makes it harder find what specs still need to
be completed if you return to an RSpec module after a break.

I propose that the ‘it’ snippet is changed to the following:

it “${0:should ${1:description}}” ${3:do
${2:pending(“Needs to be written”)}
end}

This tweak simply adds a ‘pending’ statement as the body of a newly
created spec. When run, the tester will be alerted to an unfinished
test.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Matt D., M.S.
IT Manager / Lead Web D.

Dynamix Engineering Ltd.
1108 City Park Ave.
Columbus, OH 43206
Cell: (614) 403-5289

On Jan 26, 2008 10:50 PM, Matt D. [email protected] wrote:

It seems to me that the RSpec bundle’s ‘it’ snippet is in need of some love.
By default, a newly inserted spec passes.

Not if you fill it out…and the BDD way is to write one example at a
time, not a complete spec beforehand.

This tweak simply adds a ‘pending’ statement as the body of a newly created
spec. When run, the tester will be alerted to an unfinished test.

Thoughts?

That’s the wonderful thing about TextMate being so flexible, and RSpec
being open source. You’re free to change it on your own machine.
However I’d say that there’s no chance this change gets applied to
RSpec trunk, nor should it.

Pat

Hi Matt,

one way of doing this is to leave the block out and just write:
it “should bla bla”

No ‘do’, no ‘end’. The example will be pending this way.

François

Matt D. schrieb:

Ah, I was unaware of this. Thanks for the pointer.

On Jan 28, 2008 5:42 PM, James D. [email protected] wrote:

Along these lines, I also think that a empty spec should be failing or
at least pending.

+1

Along these lines, I also think that a empty spec should be failing or
at least pending.

On Jan 27, 2008, at 6:50 AM, Matt D. wrote:

François


rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

James D.
http://devillecompanies.org
[email protected]
rspec r3172
rspec_on_rails r3172
rails r8331

Not if you fill it out…and the BDD way is to write one example at a
time, not a complete spec beforehand.

I’ve done it this way too (being lazy), but is it really good thing?
Often I get more insight on how an interface should look like,
if I think even superficially what kinds of services an object should
offer. Thus I think that writing a TODO-list in spec form
(marking all as pending) and starting to pick up those that you want
to do. Is this really considered non-BDDish by the authoritatives?

If I remember correctly, Dave A. wrote something along these lines
in his book Test Driven Development
(reminding that BDD is TDD done right): create a TODO list of small
tasks to do, related to roles of the object, and pick something
start writing tests.

IMO, if you don’t think of the features at all and just start to spec
completely some single functionality, you risk rewriting that test
many times
when you add new tests for other methods on the same object, no?


“One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
Farmer Fred’s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair.”
– Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure

On Jan 29, 2008 5:43 AM, Edvard M. [email protected] wrote:

Not if you fill it out…and the BDD way is to write one example at a
time, not a complete spec beforehand.

I’ve done it this way too (being lazy), but is it really good thing?
Often I get more insight on how an interface should look like,
if I think even superficially what kinds of services an object should
offer. Thus I think that writing a TODO-list in spec form
(marking all as pending) and starting to pick up those that you want
to do. Is this really considered non-BDDish by the authoritatives?

When I think of extra tests that I need to write, I jot them down on a
card. When I work on code, I work on one thing at a time.

There are no rules though, so if writing out a bunch of specs before
you do anything works for you, cool.

IMO, if you don’t think of the features at all and just start to spec
completely some single functionality, you risk rewriting that test
many times
when you add new tests for other methods on the same object, no?

That has not been my experience. If you have to rewrite the same test
over and over, it’s probably testing too much.

Pat

Warning - bit of a ramble below!

On 29/01/2008, Edvard M. [email protected] wrote:

If I remember correctly, Dave A. wrote something along these lines
in his book Test Driven Development
(reminding that BDD is TDD done right): create a TODO list of small
tasks to do, related to roles of the object, and pick something
start writing tests.

You make some good observations.

The advice to “pick something and start writing tests” was one of the
alarm
bells early on that told me TDD was about more than testing. I write
software to solve a problem - especially commercial software - and there
is
usually a stakeholder involved who wants to see tangible progress.

With respect, BDD is more than TDD-done-right. “Full-scale” BDD
(starting at
the outside with stories and scenarios and working inwards to the code)
grew
out of trying to identify “the next most important thing” from the
stakeholder’s perspective, rather than whatever looked most interesting
to
me as a programmer.

If you only have the close-up view of TDD - or example-level BDD (which
unfortunately is what most people consider BDD to be) - it’s difficult
to
see what the most valuable behaviour would be, and therefore the next
most
important thing to implement, so you end up choosing “somewhere
interesting”
(i.e. somewhere arbitrary in business terms). Without business-level
acceptance criteria in the form of scenarios you don’t know what “done”
looks like, so it’s very tempting to capture a whole bunch of things
that
occur to you in case one of them is the way forward. That’s when you
find
yourself writing a bunch of “todo” or pending examples.

If you start with a narrow, end-to-end piece of functionality and drill
into
it from the outside, right through until you have it working, you will
find
that at each layer of abstraction you will have a pretty focused subset
of
behaviour to implement to get the job done.

IMO, if you don’t think of the features at all and just start to spec

completely some single functionality, you risk rewriting that test
many times
when you add new tests for other methods on the same object, no?

You certainly risk revisiting something many times - often assumptions
you
made in speccing out the object without any outside-in forces to
identify
its actual value. If I’m honest, I find myself doing this more often
than I
would like, especially when I’m reworking legacy code (which is a lot of
my
time recently). I usually take it as an indication that I haven’t
broadened
my scope enough - I’m not “outside” enough to have a reasonable
perspective.
I stop, take a couple of steps back (usually reverting all my recent
changes!) and reassess exactly who is the client of the code I’ve been
tinkering with.

I can relate to your point about writing a few examples to help you
understand how an interface might work. Massaging code like that is a
great
way to explore an API. The important thing is to recognise it as just
that -
an exploratory exercise. Then you throw away any code you created in the
process and start over, outside-in, armed with the knowledge that came
out
of the spike.

Perhaps I ought to write this up - it’s a theme that comes up quite
often.

Thanks for listening,
Dan

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs