From: Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen@...>
Date: 2010-02-05T12:30:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Using Rspec for features and specs under Autotest

Sean DeNigris wrote:
>> Probably not a great idea to use mocks. �What real resources are slowing
>> you down?
> It's an application scripting library, so pretty much every method
> call interacts with an application (mostly Apple events) - there are
> windows popping up all over the place, lol.

So?  That shouldn't bother you.

>  I just want to use mocks
> in the specs i.e. unit tests, and use real resources in the outer
> cycle

Unless performance is a serious issue, your tests will probably be 
better done with real resources.  Of course, you can use mocks on 
demand, which means you don't have to ysethem everywhere.

> 
>> For the rest, if you use Cucumber for your acceptance tests (which you
>> should!), then autotest will act as you described by default if
>> AUTOFEATURE is true.
> That's what I'm doing now.  What I was wondering was if anybody was
> using rspec for the specs and rspec again for the features (instead of
> cucumber).  Maybe by encapsulating the choice to use mocks or not as
> the difference between the two cycles...
> 
> It seems like using Cucumber for the features when developers are the
> users will obscure the usage, and I don't see the benefit to plain
> English in this case.

Features are usually best expressed in nontechnical language.  That's 
why Cucumber makes so much sense.  If you think it's not so for your 
case, let's see some of your features!  It's possible that they'd be 
better as unit tests...

> 
> Sean
> 
> Thanks for the reply!

Best,
-- 
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen@marnen.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.