[ANN] test/spec 0.10, a BDD interface for Test::Unit
Christian Neukirchen
today I'm releasing test/spec 0.10, a library to do BDD with Test::Unit.
== News in 0.10:
* February 1st, 2009: Sixth public release 0.10.
* Support for Ruby 1.9. You must have the test-unit gem on 1.9.
== What is test/spec?
test/spec layers an RSpec-inspired interface on top of Test::Unit, so
you can mix TDD and BDD (Behavior-Driven Development).
test/spec is a clean-room implementation that maps most kinds of
Test::Unit assertions to a `should'-like syntax.
Consider this Test::Unit test case:
class TestFoo < Test::Unit::TestCase
def test_should_bar
assert_equal 5, 2 + 3
end
end
In test/spec, it looks like this:
require 'test/spec'
context "Foo" do
specify "should bar" do
(2 + 3).should.equal 5
end
end
Since test/spec 0.4, you can also use the new RSpec 1.0 style:
require 'test/spec'
describe "Foo" do
it "should bar" do
(2 + 3).should.equal 5
end
end
test/spec does not include a mocking/stubbing-framework; use whichever
you like to. test/spec has been tested successfully with FlexMock and
Mocha.
test/spec has no dependencies outside Ruby 1.8.
== Mixing test/spec and test/unit
test/spec and Test::Unit contexts/test cases can be intermixed freely,
run in the same test and live in the same files. You can just add them
to your Rake::TestTask, too. test/spec allows you to leverage your
full existing Test::Unit infrastructure.
test/spec does not change Test::Unit with the exception of
monkey-patching Test::Unit::TestSuite to order the test cases before
running them. (This should not do any harm, but if you know a way
around it, please tell me.)
== Wrapped assertions
assert_equal: should.equal, should ==
assert_not_equal: should.not.equal, should.not ==
assert_same: should.be
assert_not_same: should.not.be
assert_nil: should.be.nil
assert_not_nil: should.not.be.nil
assert_in_delta: should.be.close
assert_match: should.match, should =~
assert_no_match: should.not.match, should.not =~
assert_instance_of: should.be.an.instance_of
assert_kind_of: should.be.a.kind_of
assert_respond_to: should.respond_to
assert_raise: should.raise
assert_nothing_raised: should.not.raise
assert_throws: should.throw
assert_nothing_thrown: should.not.throw
assert_block: should.satisfy
== Additional assertions
These assertions are not included in Test::Unit, but have been added
to test/spec for convenience:
* should.not.satisfy
* a.should.<predicate> (works like assert a.<predicate>?)
* a.should.be <operator> (where <operator> is <, <=, >, >=, or ===)
* should.output, to check what is printed
== Messaging/Blaming
With more complex assertions, it may be helpful to provide a message
to show if the assertion has failed. This can be done with the
Should#blaming or Should#messaging methods:
RUBY_VERSION.should.messaging("Ruby too old.").be > "1.8.4"
(1 + 1).should.blaming("weird math").not.equal 11
== Custom shoulds ("Matchers")
To capture recurring patterns in parts of your specifications, you can
define custom "shoulds" (RSpec calls them "matchers") in your
contexts, or include modules of them:
context "Numbers"
class EqualString < Test::Spec::CustomShould
def matches?(other)
object == other.to_s
end
end
def equal_string(str)
EqualString.new(str)
end
specify "should have to_s"
42.should equal_string("42")
end
end
Alternatively, your implementation can define
CustomShould#assumptions, where you can use test/spec assertions
instead of Boolean predicates:
class EqualString < Test::Spec::CustomShould
def assumptions(other)
object.should.equal other.to_s
end
end
A CustomShould by default takes one argument, which is placed in
self.object for your convenience.
You can CustomShould#failure_message to provide a better error
message.
== SpecDox and RDox
test/spec adds two additional test runners to Test::Unit, based on the
console runner but with a different output format.
SpecDox, run with --runner=specdox (or -rs) looks like RSpec's output:
should.output
- works for print
- works for puts
- works with readline
RDox, run with --runner=rdox (or -rr) can be included for RDoc
documentation:
== should.output
* works for print
* works for puts
* works with readline
SpecDox and RDox work for Test::Unit too:
$ ruby -r test/spec test/testunit/test_testresult.rb -rs
Test::Unit::TC_TestResult
- fault notification
- passed?
- result changed notification
Finished in 0.106647 seconds.
3 specifications (30 requirements), 0 failures
== Shared contexts
Since version 0.9, you can define shared contexts in test/spec using
shared_context/describe_shared. These contexts are not executed on
their own, but can be included with it_should_behave_like/behaves_like
in other contexts. You can use shared contexts to structure suites
with many recurring specifications.
== Thanks to
* Eero Saynatkari for writing should.output.
* Tuxie for writing test/spec on Rails.
* Brian Donovan for allowing alternative superclasses.
* Xavier Shay for implementing nested setups/teardowns.
* Chris Wanstrath for should.raise with a block and xcontext.
* Jean-Michel Garnier for packaging the first gem.
* Mikko Lehtonen, Jan Wikholm, Matt Mower and Michael Fellinger for
testing the gem.
* Chris McGrath for reporting a bug.
* Thomas Fuchs for script.aculo.us BDD testing which convinced me.
* Dave Astels for BDD.
* The RSpec team for API inspiration.
* Nathaniel Talbott for Test::Unit.
== Copying
Copyright (C) 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Christian Neukirchen <http://purl.org/net/chneukirchen>
test/spec is licensed under the same terms as Ruby itself.
== Where can I get it?
You can download test/spec 0.10 at
http://chneukirchen.org/releases/test-spec-0.10.0.tar.gz
Alternatively, you can checkout from the development repository with:
darcs get http://chneukirchen.org/repos/testspec
Please mail bugs, suggestions and patches to
<mailto:chneuk...@gmail.com>.
(Patches using "darcs send" are most welcome.)
== Installing with RubyGems
Since version 0.3, a Gem of test/spec is available. You can install with:
gem install test-spec
(It may take some time for the index to be updated and the mirrors
propagated.) I also provide a local mirror of the gems (and
development snapshots) at my site:
gem install test-spec --source http://chneukirchen.org/releases/gems/
== Links
Behavior-Driven Development:: <http://behaviour-driven.org/>
RSpec:: <http://rspec.rubyforge.org/>
script.aculo.us testing:: <http://mir.aculo.us/articles/2006/08/29/bdd-style-javascript-testing>
FlexMock:: <http://onestepback.org/software/flexmock/>
Mocha:: <http://mocha.rubyforge.org/>
Happy hacking and have a nice day,
Christian Neukirchen
9519c8f4683268bb47c0fc6a3d6fe925d29fa52a test-spec-0.10.0.tar.gz
ec7ea48707f247316a4556c3790d49e580c2e8c9 test-spec-0.10.0.gem
Phlip
> In test/spec, it looks like this:
>
> require 'test/spec'
>
> context "Foo" do
> specify "should bar" do
> (2 + 3).should.equal 5
> end
> end
We use TextMate at work. (This may come as a surprise to those of you who read
my posts, but I lack the political prowess to help us move to Aptana or
something with a better GUI...)
When we put a cursor inside a def test_case and claw <Shift+Splat+R>, TextMate
finds the 'def test_case' above us, and runs ruby -n file_name/test_case.
That gives us Incremental Testing during our Test-Driven Development sessions.
We auditioned test/spec, and we have many specs still in producton, but we found
that <Shift+Splat+R> did not always work. Sometimes it runs the right spec, and
sometimes the wrong one...
I'm aware this is not your fault, but I remain curious about our editors'
general abilities to help and not hinder TDD!
Now a question about spec architecture in general.
> context "Numbers"
> class EqualString < Test::Spec::CustomShould
> def matches?(other)
> object == other.to_s
> end
> end
>
> def equal_string(str)
> EqualString.new(str)
> end
>
> specify "should have to_s"
> 42.should equal_string("42")
> end
> end
As far as I can tell, the only aspect of any *spec system that is not just a
remap of test_case architecture is the ability to run nested context{} blocks
with incrementally nested setup{} blocks.
context 'foo' do
setup{ @foo = Foo.new }
it('should see foo'){ @foo.should.not.be.nil }
def increment_foo
return @foo.x + 42
end
context 'foo' do
setup{ @bar = Bar.new }
it 'should see both foo & bar' do
@foo.should.not.be.nil
@bar.should.not.be.nil
end
end
end
That is very important for projects with lots of business rules.
However, can the inner context see the method increment_foo() ?
--
Phlip
James Gray
> We use TextMate at work.
> When we put a cursor inside a def test_case and claw <Shift+Splat
> +R>, TextMate finds the 'def test_case' above us, and runs ruby -n
> file_name/test_case.
>
> That gives us Incremental Testing during our Test-Driven Development
> sessions.
>
> We auditioned test/spec, and we have many specs still in producton,
> but we found that <Shift+Splat+R> did not always work. Sometimes it
> runs the right spec, and sometimes the wrong one...
Here are the regular expressions we use inside TextMate to find specs
from test/spec:
# test/spec.
spec = $3 || $4 if lines.find { |line| line =~ /^\s*(specify|
it)\s+('(.*)'|"(.*)")+\s*(\{|do)/ }
context = $3 || $4 if lines.find { |line| line =~ /^\s*(context|
describe)\s+('(.*)'|"(.*)")+\s*(\{|do)/ }
If those need tweaking, let us know.
James Edward Gray II
Phlip
> describe)\s+('(.*)'|"(.*)")+\s*(\{|do)/ }
>
> If those need tweaking, let us know.
>
> James Edward Gray II
Thanks! I forwarded them to The Usual Suspects!