Proposing some test style standards

[jphenow]

We've proven, by having and using this style guide, that we all have at least some amount of respect for achieving a reasonable level of consistency amongst our code. It creates less confusion, makes jumping into code and understand what's happening much less of a chore, not to mention how much easier various editor tasks are if we can at least hope for that code consistency. All of that said, I'd like to propose we apply the style guide towards our testing consistency as well.

For RSpec context and describe are aliases. While I understand there is a difference in reading context vs. reading describe, its the same argument between map and collect. They both do the same thing, we know they do the same thing, and we confuse the use of the two. Perhaps though, that difference can expose some test meaning - I think that argument is worth settling in the style guide. This is one example of a style detail that I would like to put down for future and enforce a standard.

I would be in favor of writing a guide for both TestUnit and RSpec such that we can continue to aim towards reasonable consistency in our development efforts. There currently are not many (of any) TestUnit style guides in the community (does that say something?), but I think some simple standards could be set, especially if we're to continue using it on newer applications.

Existing links to check out:

• https://github.com/howaboutwe/rspec-style-guide
• https://github.com/bbatsov/rails-style-guide#testing-rails-applications
• http://betterspecs.org/

[chrisarcand]

👍

[NickLaMuro]

I think if we are going to refer to class methods, we should use the :: syntax, and not the .. Ruby docs use the ::, and I think it is a little more obvious on what is being referred to when using that syntax.

[NickLaMuro]

I really wish that rspec didn't remove before(:all), because it makes doing controller tests in a reasonable fashion (with multiple assertions) really difficult.

[jphenow]

I see your reasoning with :: and I like it with the more-explicative nature. Keep in mind this removal is coming in the future.

before(:all) does still exist does it not?

[carlallen]

Do this...

[anfleene]

This will be a bit complicated since we'll have rspec 2, rspec 3, and minitest. But I totally think its worth it. I've already started using rspec 3 on some projects and its pretty sweet.