spec/shoes/learn_app_spec.rb

[shoes]

spec/shoes/learn_app_spec.rb

[wasnotrice]

This is my first rspec for learning. :)

Awesome!

Is line 6 Shoes::App.any_instance.stub(:gui_open) reasonable? Using :gui_open instead of :flow

This is a smell. Given our code right now, you have to do something like this, though. After we make Shoes::Swt::App a class, you won't have to do this.

Is line 7 @app = Shoes.app{} reasonable? Using instace variable @app instead of local variable app.

You can use @app if you want. The other way is to do let(:app) { Shoes::App.new }. If you use let, the block won't be evaluated until you actually use app in your code, so it allows you to do other setup if you need it. Most of the specs we have so far use let.

Using Shoes.app instead of Shoes::App.new.

I would say you should use Shoes::App.new in this spec, so that you limit yourself to testing just this one class. There should be a separate spec that tests whether Shoes.app works as expected.

[pjfitzgibbons]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM, ashbb <
[email protected]

wrote:

This is my first rspec for learning. :)

• Is line 6 Shoes::App.any_instance.stub(:gui_open) reasonable? Using
  :gui_open instead of :flow

Yes! You're creating a spec of the Shoes-DSL, so it should "ignore" the
gui.

• Is line 7 @app = Shoes.app{} reasonable? Using instace variable @app
  instead of local variable app. Using Shoes.app instead of Shoes::App.new.

Yes! You're wanting to reference @app in the tests (#it), so you need an
instance variable to pass it around within the Rspec::ExampleGroup instance
that runs the tests.
I think Shoes.app is ok. I notice that Shoes.app requires a block.. .we
might want to fix that in the future.

Thought?

Well done!

Peter Fitzgibbons
[phone]
Email: [email protected]
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: [email protected]

[ashbb]

Thank you for the comments. :)
Okay, I got the basics. So, will try to improve some specs actually. ;-)