From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>
Date: 2007-01-24T05:06:30+09:00
Subject: Re: test/spec -- was Re: I don't get rspec

Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@path.berkeley.edu> writes:

> 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?

They can contain anything except NUL bytes (the extended symbol
syntax).  They are turned into class and method names automatically
(we need some special formatting for that due to Test::Unit
restrictions).

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

test/spec allows them since 0.2, and I use them to group contexts that
go together.  Note that nothing is inherited, it's purely namespacing.
RSpec doesn't have them, and they aren't interesting in implementing
them AFAICT.

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

Yes, you can use

    context "Blah" do
      setup do
        @blah = Blah.new
      end
    
      teardown do
        @blah.destroy!
      end
    end

You can have multiple of these, and they are run in order of
appearance.

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org