From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2007-01-23T07:20:33+09:00
Subject: test/spec -- was Re: I don't get rspec

Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> "nicknameoptional" <dorrenchen@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I just discovered rspec today, reading the example and tutorials,
>> besides the doc and coverage features, I can't see how is it different
>> from unit test. For my rails app, existing testing tools in rails
>> already fills all my testing needs. So what does rspec do more than
>> existing testing tools? Thanks.
> 
> I don't know about you, but since I use test/spec[1] (my Test::Unit
> based variant of RSpec), I enjoy writing tests and doing test-first a
> lot more.  I didn't think it would make such a big difference, but it
> really does.
> 
> [1]: http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2006/10/announcing-test-spec-0-2-a-bdd-interface-for-test-unit.html
> 
> (I hope to release test/spec 0.3 this week... speak up now if you wish
> for anything.)

I like the continuity with test/unit. I'd be more likely to use this 
than rspec for my older projects.

Questions (from a BDD newbie):

Are the context and specify argument strings purely documentation, or do 
they need to be class or method names?

Is it possible to nest contexts? Is this a good idea?

Inside of a context, is there a setup/teardown protocol as there is in 
test/unit?

-- 
        vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407