On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Brian Candler <b.candler / pobox.com> wrote:
> Peter Szinek wrote:
>> Not really... but you could check out shoulda
>> (http://www.thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda/
>> )
>
> +1 for Shoulda.
>
> You can keep using all the existing assert_xxx macros of Test::Unit, but
> wrap up groups of tests in a logical and hierarchical way.
>

I have been using test/spec for same thing. What advantages shoulda
have over test/spec ?


> I also find it much clearer to write
>
>    assert_equal "foo", @bar    # required value, actual value
>
> rather than whatever_the.rspec.equivalent_is?
>
> FWIW, I use Shoulda with mocha. I previously used flexmock, but I found
> its error messages when expectations are not met to be very unhelpful in
> locating the problem.
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>



-- 
Let them talk of their oriental summer climes of everlasting
conservatories; give me the privilege of making my own summer with my
own coals.

http://gnufied.org