# Why detest rspec? (was: community poll about testing and spe **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [July 24, 2007, 4:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241 "2007-07-24T16:03:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/21 "2007-09-25T23:04:05Z")
s.ross wrote: > This argument is the same one you could use to say “what can you write in > Ruby that you can’t write, nearly the same way, in C”? Uh, in the same volume of code? At the same velocity? – Phlip [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510657/](http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510657/) ^ assert\_xpath [O'Reilly Media - Technology and Business Training](http://tinyurl.com/23tlu5) ← assert\_raise\_message ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/22 "2007-09-25T23:04:59Z")
We could debate either side of the issue. I could say “with the same compactness? with equivalent performance characteristics?” but at the end of the discussion, it’s all about what clicks for you. If you are happy with asserts (like in C, hence my analogy), then use them. I believe the BDD people – and I count David among one of the most thoughtful of the bunch – have put a good deal of work into making the description of the spec as natural as possible. Again, it’s what reads naturally to you. If you don’t parse it naturally, then no prob. Also, make careful note of what David says about the failure messages. This was one of my biggest complaints with Test::Unit and the fix is pretty close to free with RSpec. The failures report pretty much in English and if they don’t I probably wrote the example wrong. –s ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/23 "2007-09-25T23:04:10Z")
On 7/25/07, Faisal N Jawdat [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, David C. wrote: > > > RSpec supports this by trying to use words like “describe” instead > > of “TestCase” and “should” instead of “assert.” > > As an aside, RSpec’s use of “should” may be confusing to anyone > coming from the networking world: > > [RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev (RFC2119)](http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html) ☹ Can’t clarify everything for everybody I guess. ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/24 "2007-09-25T23:08:06Z")
On 7/25/07, Phlip [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > s.ross wrote: > > > This argument is the same one you could use to say “what can you write in > > Ruby that you can’t write, nearly the same way, in C”? > > Uh, in the same volume of code? At the same velocity? OK, so what about python? I think the point Steve was making was about “feel”, which is what Ruby and Rails are largely about. To me, there is a huge difference between this: team.should have(11).players and this assert\_equal 11, team.players.size And an even bigger difference in the output when these fail: expected 11 players, got 10 vs expected 11, got 10 Implementing these probably takes the same amount of time. A month later, seeing “expected 11 players” is VERY meaningful, especially when multiple failures appear due to a change you just made. If I see 10 failures that all say “expected x things, got y”, then I have a lot more information right away about what went wrong than if I just see “expected x, got y”. FWIW. David ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/25 "2007-09-25T23:06:12Z")
Hi – On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Faisal N Jawdat wrote: > On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, David C. wrote: > > > RSpec supports this by trying to use words like “describe” instead > > of “TestCase” and “should” instead of “assert.” > > As an aside, RSpec’s use of “should” may be confusing to anyone > coming from the networking world: > > [RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev (RFC2119)](http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html) I don’t think that coming from the networking world means one can’t make the leap of imagination required to realize that the entire world does not speak in compliance with RFC2119 🙂 I wouldn’t worry about it for a second. David – - Books: RAILS ROUTING (new! [http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321509242](http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321509242)) RUBY FOR RAILS ([Ruby for Rails](http://www.manning.com/black)) - Ruby/Rails training & consulting: Ruby Power and Light, LLC ([http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com)) ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/26 "2007-09-25T23:09:13Z")
On 7/25/07, James M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Roderick: David C. might be a little miffed with your selective > quoting which makes it appear as if he doesn’t like RSpec… > > David C. wrote: > > > > I may be biased, but I would really like and have been looking for an > > > alternative BDD choice besides RSpec. > > This was not written by David, but was written in response to an email from > him. The only clue to this is the level of indentation of the quoting. Actually, this makes me laugh more than piss me off. But thanks for sticking up for me 🙂 Cheers, David ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/27 "2007-09-25T23:11:57Z")
On Jul 25, 6:34 pm, Faisal N Jawdat [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:50 AM, David C. wrote: > > > RSpec supports this by trying to use words like “describe” instead > > of “TestCase” and “should” instead of “assert.” > > As an aside, RSpec’s use of “should” may be confusing to anyone > coming from the networking world: > > [RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev (RFC2119)](http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html) Fortunately, if you find “should” confusing or misleading you can write your examples such as this one: it “should redirect to the home page after logging out” like this instead: it “must redirect to the home page after logging out” Or using any other word or language you think is better. The language you employ in your examples is up to you, although the RSpec community does tend to use some widespread patterns, including the use of the word “should” in a way that is closer to the “standard English sense” rather than the “RFC-2119 sense”. Cheers, Wincent ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/28 "2007-09-25T23:09:47Z")
@David: Would you be kind enough to briefly explain what you perceive to be the advantages to RSpec? I’m really hoping for a good comparison of the two, so I can see if it’s worth investigating further. (I am writing a book that will include testing, and need more info). I’ve played with RSPec and haven’t really found anything I can’t do with test:unit… so that’s why I’m looking for more info. I’d really appreciate some input. I suspect that it’s much like TDD… you have to do it before you really appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/29 "2007-09-25T23:12:00Z")
s.ross wrote: > This argument is the same one you could use to say “what can you write > in Ruby that you can’t write, nearly the same way, in C”? Heck, they are > both TC general purpose computer programming languages. Ahhhh, but the > “feel” is different. That’s what I find sets RSpec apart, and if it > doesn’t click for you it might not _work_ for you. Agreed. I also consider RSpec to be one of those most exciting things to pop up in the Ruby community since Rails. Our pure-Ruby libs are being spec’d (not tested) and we can pretty much run rm -rf test/ in our Rails applications. It might not sit well with all, but the syntax is a great example of how great and expressive Ruby can be. Robby – Robby R. [http://www.robbyonrails.com/](http://www.robbyonrails.com/) > **[Planet Argon](https://www.planetargon.com/)** > > Planet Argon is a Ruby on Rails development agency specializing in maintenance and support for existing Rails apps. Based in Portland, OR, Planet Argon has been a member of the Rails community since 2004. ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/30 "2007-09-25T23:12:02Z")
On 7/26/07, Wincent C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > [RFC 2119 - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev (RFC2119)](http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html) > > Or using any other word or language you think is better. The language > > you employ in your examples is up to you, although the RSpec community > > does tend to use some widespread patterns, including the use of the > > word “should” in a way that is closer to the “standard English sense” > > rather than the “RFC-2119 sense”. > > Cheers, > Wincent I’m pretty sure that he’s referring to foo.should == bar However I have to say I think it’s an absurdly nitty “issue” Pat ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/31 "2007-09-25T23:12:10Z")
On 7/25/07, Brian H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > @David: > > Would you be kind enough to briefly explain what you perceive to be the > advantages to RSpec? I’m really hoping for a good comparison of the two, so > I can see if it’s worth investigating further. (I am writing a book that > will include testing, and need more info). I’ve played with RSPec and > haven’t really found anything I can’t do with test:unit… so that’s why > I’m looking for more info. I’d really appreciate some input. I suspect that > it’s much like TDD… you have to do it before you really appreciate it. I don’t know that there is anything that you can’t do with test/unit - just that rspec comes w/ a lot of this stuff out of the box. And I think it is something experiential. Many people who really enjoy using RSpec say they were skeptical at first, but have grown to love it. Here are some specific comparisons: - dsl for expressing/organizing examples using strings describe Thing do it “should do cool stuff” do … end end vs class ThingTest \<\< Test::Unit::TestCase def test\_should\_do\_cool\_stuff … end end I find that this encourages better naming and organization. - dsl for expressing expectations team.should have(11).players vs assert\_equal 11, team.players.size - better failure messages expected empty? to return true, got false vs expected true, got false - better reporting Thing - should do this - should do that - should do the other thing (FAILED - 1) - should do even this (PENDING: Not Yet Implemented) vs … There is also a nicely formatted HTML report out of the box: [http://rspec.rubyforge.org/report.html](http://rspec.rubyforge.org/report.html) - rspec\_on\_rails - component isolation allows you to test views before controllers or models even exist. This is VERY helpful when you’re on an XP or XP-like team. I’m sure there’s more that I’m not thinking of right now. There’s also the “joy” factor. I find it a more joyful experience to use RSpec, for the reasons stated above and for reasons that you can only appreciate by exploring it. Hope this helps. Cheers, David ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/32 "2007-09-25T23:20:07Z")
Pat M. wrote: > > > > > foo.should == bar > Ah, yes, you’re almost certainly right. Well the solution to that is also only a step away (alias “should” and “should\_not” to whatever you want in your spec helper file). Of course, I wouldn’t actually recommend doing so, as it seems to be going against the grain for no real good reason. Cheers, Wincent ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/33 "2007-09-25T23:20:44Z")
@David, @Kyle: Great stuff. If you were going to expose people to tests, would you start with TDD and test:unit, or would you go right to BDD and RSpec? ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/34 "2007-09-25T23:12:12Z")
Brian H. wrote: > @David: > > Would you be kind enough to briefly explain what you perceive to be the > advantages to RSpec? I’m really hoping for a good comparison of the two, so > I can see if it’s worth investigating further. (I am writing a book that > will include testing, and need more info). I’ve played with RSPec and > haven’t really found anything I can’t do with test:unit… And that’s as expected. As you’ll read in most intros to BDD, it’s the same practice as TDD, but with the focus shifted. Everything you can do with BDD can be done with TDD. People seem to be expecting some sort of sea change in development practices, but that’s not going to happen here. And from what I’ve read, it was never intended to. It’s a small tweak, to refocus TDD practitioners a slight bit. They think it produces better specs/tests, not because it’s something that couldn’t be done before, but because it’s now more obvious what you should be doing. If TDD has always worked well for you (as I’ve read before, “if you’ve been doing it right all along”), then great, stick with it. But the very simple terminology changes are what made the point of TDD finally click for me. As for rspec specifically? It does what I need it to, produces phenomenally legible specs, and then stays out of the way. Kyle ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/35 "2007-09-25T23:20:47Z")
> … > I first saw RSpec in one of the tutorials at RailsConf this year. The > positive reinforcement from seeing what you were testing each time was > compelling. I also find seeing the list of tested behaviors often > suggests to me the next test/feature that needs to be added to the > project. (Now if I could just get my rspec.conf file to be used so I > don’t have to pass ‘-f specdoc’ each time I run my tests. > - rspec\_on\_rails - component isolation allows you to test views before > controllers or models even exist. This is VERY helpful when you’re on > an XP or XP-like team. David, could you expand on this? Or post a link to docs or a tutorial or blog post about testing views with RSpec. – Cynthia K. removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/36 "2007-09-25T23:21:30Z")
On 7/27/07, Cynthia K. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > David C. wrote: > > > - rspec\_on\_rails - component isolation allows you to test views before > > controllers or models even exist. This is VERY helpful when you’re on > > an XP or XP-like team. > > David, could you expand on this? Or post a link to docs or a tutorial > or blog post about testing views with RSpec. [http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/06/view-spec-tutorial](http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/06/view-spec-tutorial) [http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html](http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html) [http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc-rails/index.html](http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc-rails/index.html) Cheers, David ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/37 "2007-09-25T23:22:06Z")
On 7/25/07, Brian H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > @David, @Kyle: > > Great stuff. If you were going to expose people to tests, would you start > with TDD and test:unit, or would you go right to BDD and RSpec? Green field? i.e. no experience with testing at all? Definitely RSpec. Beyond that, it depends on myriad factors, mostly boiling down to what is going to be most pragmatic for the team based on their level of experience with Ruby, testing in general, other frameworks, etc. I’d always prefer RSpec because, well, I prefer it. But sometimes going w/ test/unit could be more pragmatic, at least in the short run. David ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/38 "2007-09-25T23:36:34Z")
Look here: [http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html](http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html) The idea is that you can mock enough to populate the view data allowing you to design from the “outside in.” Basically mock up your UI, do it in RHTML (or whatever markup you like), and write specs for that. ---
**Author:** ![crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@crucoba](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crucoba)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241/39 "2007-09-25T23:36:29Z")
Brian H. wrote: > @David, @Kyle: > > Great stuff. If you were going to expose people to tests, would you > start with TDD and test:unit, or would you go right to BDD and RSpec? Our team adopted RSpec about a year ago and we’ve been through several projects entirely without Test::Unit. If someone has never had any experience with TDD, then I would advocate learning through BDD… and would recommend RSpec as the framework to learn it with. On a side note. JRuby 1.0 will come with two gems. Rake and RSpec. Yes… people are using it in the real world and I can testify on it’s behalf in court. It’s elegant. Our developers _LOVE_ it. I love it. Even our Interaction Designers have picked up on the lingo and use “should”-style language in their interface specifications, which translates nicely into our implementation process. RSpec ftw! Robby – Robby R. [http://www.robbyonrails.com/](http://www.robbyonrails.com/) > **[Planet Argon](https://www.planetargon.com/)** > > Planet Argon is a Ruby on Rails development agency specializing in maintenance and support for existing Rails apps. Based in Portland, OR, Planet Argon has been a member of the Rails community since 2004. [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-detest-rspec-was-community-poll-about-testing-and-spe/110241.md?page=1)