<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>jvoorhis comments on BDD, RSpec and RUnit</title>
    <link>http://www.jvoorhis.com/</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>jvoorhis comments</description>
    <item>
      <title>"BDD, RSpec and RUnit": comment by Michael Granger</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I think you mean Test::Unit. RUnit is an older, deprecated test framework.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;RSpec, and  BDD  in general, is an effort to change the way developers think about how they design/create their code.  BDD  is supposed to make you think in terms of specification instead of verification, which is a subtle but significant difference. Dave Astels&amp;#8217; paper which followed the article you linked (here: http://daveastels.com/files/sdbp2005/BDD%20Intro.pdf) on the subject is a must-read.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;m not sure I completely buy into some of the more-radical opinions I&amp;#8217;ve heard surrounding  BDD  yet, but I think the overall idea has merit. I find RSpec to be much more Rubyish in its syntax, using left-to-right chains of methods for specification instead of functional-type assertions. That&amp;#8217;s not to say that you couldn&amp;#8217;t drive Test::Unit that way.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:12:50 NZDT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.jvoorhis.com/articles/2005/09/28/bdd-rspec-and-runit#comment-64</guid>
      <link>http://www.jvoorhis.com/articles/2005/09/28/bdd-rspec-and-runit#comment-64</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>"BDD, RSpec and RUnit" by jvoorhis</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Today on #ruby-lang, I was enlightened to the latest XP-inspired testing paradigm: &lt;a href="http://daveastels.com/index.php?p=5"&gt;Behaviour Driven Development&lt;/a&gt;, as well as srbaker&amp;#8217;s implementation of &lt;a href="http://rspec.rubyforge.org/"&gt;RSpec&lt;/a&gt;. It seems like a really great idea &amp;#8211; testing semantically, rather than per-module or per-method. I&amp;#8217;m not quite sure, however, why a new testing framework is needed. Today, I wrote multiple tests for a method with RUnit:&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;code&gt;Event#find_event_in_range_of_time&lt;/code&gt; is tested with

&lt;code&gt;EventTest#test_find_event_in_range_of_time_for_organization&lt;/code&gt; 

	&lt;p&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;code&gt;EventTest#test_find_event_in_range_of_time_for_range&lt;/code&gt;. 

	&lt;p&gt;Granted, I haven&amp;#8217;t tried RSpec yet, and I do not want to discount srbaker&amp;#8217;s work &amp;#8211; he is a smart developer &amp;#8211; but I am not sure why another testing framework is needed for Ruby. It seems like either way you end up with a somewhat larger mass of tests for specific behaviours, and RUnit is nicely baked into Rails.&lt;/p&gt;


	&lt;p&gt;Any comments, guys?&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:04:00 NZST</pubDate>
      <guid>&lt;a href="/articles/2005/09/28/bdd-rspec-and-runit"&gt;BDD, RSpec and RUnit&lt;/a&gt;</guid>
      <link>&lt;a href="/articles/2005/09/28/bdd-rspec-and-runit"&gt;BDD, RSpec and RUnit&lt;/a&gt;</link>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
