David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, James Britt wrote:
> 

>> Isn't the idea of TDD and BDD that you discover what classes and 
>> method are needed by writing the tests first?  So there *should* be no 
>> model in place prior to writing the test; the initial failure of the 
>> test is what drive the creation of the model.
> 
> That may be the ideal for some people, but not for me when I'm
> modeling a domain and especially when I'm working out a database
> schema. I don't consider unit tests to have superseded the other tools
> that support those activities, including blank pieces of paper and
> index cards and so on. I guess you could write unit tests for a Rails
> app before creating the models, if you mocked up the objects'
> attributes, their associated objects, and so on (since there would
> presumably be no database yet), and then rename your files so they
> don't get clobbered when you generate the test files... but it seems
> like it would be terribly arduous, with no real gain, and I don't
> think I've ever seen anyone do it.

http://www.infoq.com/interviews/Dave-Astels-and-Steven-Baker#

Quote:

I guess you don't use the Rails code generation then.

Steven: No, not at all. I use TDD to generate code manually.

So you don't even do model generation with Rails?

Steven: Not at all. Especially when I'm pairing with somebody who's 
never used Rails before or who has never done TDD before I find it 
especially important not to rely on the generator to give me test stubs, 
to give me things that I should know or that I should be providing for 
myself. When the failings specifications tell me that I need it, because 
that would be contradicting what I'm trying to teach.





-- 
James Britt

www.happycamperstudios.com   - Wicked Cool Coding
www.jamesbritt.com           - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org             - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com            - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff