Is it curtains for RSpec?

November 04, 2008
We've stopped using RSpec... say Rails development team ENTP. They're now back to Test::Unit but improved with Jeremy McAnally's context. Others in the comments suggest shoulda. Is it curtains for RSpec?
Posted by PeterCooper at 10:29 - 27 comments
“”Because one team stopped using it? I don't think so. I use all three mentioned testing frameworks, and they all have their pros and cons. What's more worrying me than problems with RSpec is the fact that testing itself is still not widely adopted, regardless of the framework used. When it comes to testing bigger Rails applications RSpec is still my preferred tool. Instead of complaining about the RSpec problems they should've just fixed them. But well, bashing RSpec seems to be the new thing these days.mathias - November 04, 2008 11:02
“”These sorts of progressions have occurred in many other areas of the Rails ecosystem (such as Apache->lighttpd->back to Apache->Mongrel->nginx/thin or CVS->SVN->Git) so I don't feel too bad about calling this one. This appears to be the earliest recognizable stage of a tipping point.PeterCooper - November 04, 2008 11:20
“”There's nothing new about bashing RSpec.RSL - November 04, 2008 12:30
“”"Instead of complaining about the RSpec problems they should've just fixed them."

Easier said than done, especially when there are working alternatives they can simply switch to.Norman Clarke - November 04, 2008 12:31
“”When you have a really big test suite, switching is not always an option too. I wouldn't want to switch > 1000 specs to a different framework. That's also easier said than done.mathias - November 04, 2008 13:22
“”More 'sensationalist' head lines from Peter;) Jonathan Conway - November 04, 2008 15:00
“”I hope so! I hate having to install extra libraries just to use somebody's favorite test suite. This goes double for library code.

I do like shoulda though, because the macros are great and you can use it without special syntax if you want to.look - November 04, 2008 15:13
“”If I stop reading rubyflow, does that mean there will be a post about "curtains for RubyFlow"?BJ Clark - November 04, 2008 16:35
“”In other news, my household stopped using Charmin and switched back to store-brand 2-ply with hand lotion for the chaffing. Does this mean it's curtains for Charmin?Brian - November 04, 2008 16:51
“”@matias

"I wouldn't want to switch > 1000 specs to a different framework."

True, me either. They're switching just for new projects they start.Norman Clarke - November 04, 2008 19:52
“”I stopped buying American cars. Does this mean its curtains for America?WTF - November 04, 2008 21:57
“”I think I am done with Rubyflow. You sound like a homeschooled journalist with an abundance of ignorance.Done - November 04, 2008 21:58
“”Mr Done: I want to apologize for offending something you are emotionally connected to. I didn't realize you took it so personally, and am very sorry.

Secondly, is this all over the five words, "Is it curtains for RSpec?" This form of sentence is called a question. It is speculative and looking for responses - it is not a declaration. I am very sorry a question offended you.

Third, if I sound like a homeschooled journalist, it is because I am. I very much apologize for this. This is a community blog to which anyone can post, and if you don't want to read what other people have to say, I'm very sorry.

In conclusion, I am extremely sorry for the seemingly very offensive things I've said in this post. I hope that, one day, you will forgive me.PeterCooper - November 05, 2008 00:05
“”A statement:

I am dismayed both that the offensive comments broadcast on RubyFlow on 4 November fell so far short of audiences' legitimate expectations.

I offer a full and unreserved apology to the readers of this site, including those who raised the initial objections over this content.

Editorial control and compliance procedures are inadequate and need to be strengthened. I will strengthen immediately the editorial controls around any content which represents high levels of editorial risk.

My job is to ensure that RubyFlow provides a wide range of content to reflect a diverse society made up differing ages, interests and backgrounds. In doing so however, it is essential that RubyFlow demonstrates its commitment to the highest level of editorial standards at all times.

RubyFlow has fallen way short of the public's overall expectations in this case, and it is essential that lessons are learned to avoid further lapses in the future.PeterCooper - November 05, 2008 00:14
“”I hope you're kidding. This is the internet, after all, and taking flames is part of it. Yes, "Is it curtains for RSpec?" is a worthless question, but who the hell cares? Keep it up, Peter :)Brian - November 05, 2008 00:26
“”Brian: Haha, sure, and I like to take them as gracefully as they are delivered. :) Let the beat roll on!PeterCooper - November 05, 2008 00:29
“”This post from caboosers made me laugh, "we don't know how to upgrade gems but we don't want to admit that so let's find someone/something to blame" what a bunch of loosers (caboosers ;)globtroter - November 05, 2008 14:49
“”It was a big sigh of relief to read the headline, and to hear that people are struggling with RSpec. Why continue battling with something that is making your life harder when there are easier ways to get your testing done?Andrew - November 06, 2008 01:27
“”Is it curtains for Ruby?

Kindof a lame post, as others have said. Also, I'm *very* surprised ... I consider RSpec to be the de-facto standard for testing for many/most Rubyists. Where are these sudden anti-RSpec opinions coming from?

I've never run into any of the weirdness described. The only problems I've ever had with spec were compatibility issues with particular versions of Autotest.

I *love* RSpec, but I would also *love* to hear why alternatives are any better. I've always wanted to use Bacon, for example, because I love how simple it is, but it doesn't some with enough functionality out-of-the-box for me (maybe if I used it alongside Mocha for the mocking stuff ...)remi - November 06, 2008 06:43
“”Just FYI, using context and matchy together, the changes were very minimal. The two together are nearly API compatible with RSpec (and will be even closer after RubyConf).Jeremy McAnally - November 06, 2008 13:47
“”Just a random point that came to mind, but the defensiveness of RSpec devotees strikes me in contrast to how Rails folk acted when criticized a few years ago (and are still criticized, really).PeterCooper - November 06, 2008 16:44
“”It's time to put these experiments to bed. RSpec, shoulda, context, matchy, test/spec, etc., etc.

Nested contexts cause more problems than they solve. All of these libs (even context, the smallest) use too much "magic". We're now seeing testing gems that try to be "API compatible" with all of these experiments.

Stick with standards: Test::Unit. Return to sanity.

Only painful thing about Test::Unit is the snake_case_underscores. That is solved in Rails:

http://github.com/jeremymcanally/context/tree/master/lib/context/test.rb

For greenfield Rails apps, I encourage my fellow Rubyists to stick with what Ruby gives you by default. You'll get farther than you think, and you'll be encouraging standards and all the benefits that come along with them.

Testing is good. Stop over-thinking it. Focus on building apps, not new, clever testing DSLs that don't solve any problems or alleviate any pain.Dan Croak - November 06, 2008 20:58
“”Sorry, wrong link above:

ActiveSupport::TestCase.testDan Croak - November 06, 2008 21:00
“”I'm still confused by this post.

Is this anti-RSpec or any DSLs?

"I encourage my fellow Rubyists to stick with what Ruby gives you by default."

I guess we wouldn't use any gems? Make everything by hand? You, sir, must not have project deadlines!

I really do want to better understand the argument against RSpec. It's a DSL that makes BDD fun and easy. I can write specification examples that are human-readable. I greatly enjoy using RSpec - especially after years of old-school xUnit-style assertions.

If there's a reason why RSpec is bad, I would very much like to know. I enjoy following the conventions of the community and, currently, I feel like RSpec is conventional (not to mention, I greatly enjoy using it).

Out of curiosity, are there *any* alternatives to RSpec (that give a similar BDD DSL), besides Bacon?remi - November 07, 2008 01:34
“”Reading the post and the comments thoroughly I can't find a single argument that tries to explain why rspec is worse or better than any other alternative. Does anyone have a good reason or is it just because some guys once had a problem deploying an app that we are asking ourselves whether is it curtains for a testing framework? Luismi Cavallé / http://blog.lmcavalle.com - November 07, 2008 21:43
“”A very good summary here.PeterCooper - November 09, 2008 03:05
“”RSpec is still the best testing system going. I just wish the team behind it would stop bloating it, and spin stuff like "stories" off into separate libraries.sporkmonger - November 10, 2008 15:37
“”

Post a Comment

Note: If you are a registered user, log in to populate these fields.

If you wish, you may use these HTML tags to format your comment:
<a href="" title=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strong>

POLTYY