From: Brian Candler <b.candler@...>
Date: 2008-12-10T07:21:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Test Frameworks

Richard Conroy wrote:
> Shoulda and RSpec I think are tackling different needs. The learning
> curve is greater
> and there is more magic involved, but I suspect that test
> organisation, and consolidation
> of reporting is probably a greater priority than natural language test
> description.

For Rspec I agree - I found it too contrived - but shoulda fitted my 
needs much better. It gives you the meaningful test names, and also 
setup/teardown contexts which avoids having to make a new class for 
every set of fixtures. But you keep good old-fashioned assertions at the 
bottom.

class Foo < Test::Unit::TestCase
  context "Piping in FOO" do
    setup do
      File.delete("output.txt")
      @res = `echo "FOO" | ./wibble`
    end

    should "generate output BAR" do
      assert_match /BAR/, @res
    end

    should "create file output.txt" do
      assert File.exist?("output.txt")
    end

    # etc
  end
end
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.