[ruby-talk:13749] Re: methods and types

[e-mail] (Matt Armstrong) writes:

> I'm curious about this.  Coming from a mainly C/C++/Perl background,
> it isn't obvious to me how this benefit of "easy testability" is
> actually realized.  I've been basically coding in Ruby just like I'd
> code in Perl (except using classes all over the place).  But my
> write/test habits haven't changed.
> 
> What kinds of things can I do to make my Ruby code easier to test?

I find I do a couple of things differently. First, because method and
class definitions are so painless, I find myself writing more of them,
and each method tends to be smaller. As I tend to test each method as
I write it, that leads to more frequent tests. As the methods are so
small, the tests tend to pass first time too, so there's a rhythm that
builds up.

Second, I use Ruby's type tolerance to advantage during testing.
Perhaps I have a routine that's going to add some data to a file. I
know it uses '<<' to do the append, so during testing I can pass in an
empty string, and then check the value in that string when the routine
exits. Obviously you _can_ do this in other languages, but being able
to do it without any messing about whatsoever makes the experience far
more enjoyable in Ruby (which in turn means that you end up doing it
more often :).


Regards


Dave