Ruby on Rails on Minitest.key

Ruby on Rails on Minitest

RailsConf 2015, Atlanta, GA

Ryan Davis, Seattle.rb

@the_zenspider

Setting ExpectationsIntroductory Talk.

Very Little Code.

Not going to teach testing or TDD.

What & why, not how.

218 Slides, 5.45 SPM.2

@the_zenspider

WTF is minitest?

@the_zenspider

What is Minitest?Replacement for ruby 1.8’s test/unit.

Originally 90 lines of code, only test/unit basics.

Available as a gem, and ships with ruby 1.9.1 & up.

Meant to be small, clean, and very fast.

Now ~1600 loc, unit, spec, benchmarks, mock/stub, plugins, etc.4

@the_zenspider

6 Parts of Minitestrunner The heart of the machine

minitest/unit TDD API

minitest/spec BDD API

minitest/mock Simple mocking API

minitest/pride IO pipelining example

minitest/bench Abstract benchmark API 5

@the_zenspider

2 Parts of Minitestrunner The heart of the machine

minitest/unit TDD API

minitest/spec BDD API

minitest/mock Simple mocking API

minitest/pride IO pipelining example

minitest/bench Abstract benchmark API 6

@the_zenspider

minitest/test

@the_zenspider

Test Cases are

Classes8

@the_zenspider

Tests are

Methods9

@the_zenspider

require "minitest/autorun"

class TestThingy < Minitest::Test def test_do_the_thing assert_equal 42, Thingy.do_the_thing end end

Test Example

@the_zenspider

Test ExampleSimple Subclass

@the_zenspider

Test ExampleSimple Subclass

Simple Method

@the_zenspider

Test Example

Magic Free!

Simple Subclass

Simple Method

@the_zenspider

Positive Assertionsassert

assert_empty

assert_equal

assert_in_delta

assert_in_epsilon+

assert_includes+

assert_instance_of

assert_kind_of

assert_match

assert_nil

assert_operator

assert_output*+

assert_predicate+

assert_raises*

assert_respond_to

assert_same

assert_send*

assert_silent*+

assert_throws*

*no negative equiv+not in testunit

@the_zenspider

Negative Assertionsrefute+

refute_empty+

refute_equal

refute_in_delta+

refute_in_epsilon+

refute_includes+

refute_instance_of+

refute_kind_of+

refute_match

refute_nil

refute_operator+

refute_output

refute_predicate+

refute_raises

refute_respond_to+

refute_same

refute_send

refute_silent

refute_throws

+not in testunit

@the_zenspider

assert ! obj refute obj

assert collection.include? obj assert_includes obj, collection

out, err = capture_io do do_something end assert_equal "output", out assert_equal "", err

assert_output "output", "" do do_something end

Why all these extra assertions? They're more expressive!

@the_zenspider

assert_equal diffs: 1) Failure: test_failing_simple(TestSimple) [example.rb:8]: Expected: 42 Actual: 24

2) Failure: test_failing_complex(TestComplex) [example.rb:23]: --- expected +++ actual @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ "line 22", "line 23", "line 24", - "line 25", + "something unexpected", "line 26", "line 27", "line 28",

@the_zenspider

But...15

@the_zenspider

Where is refute_raises?

@the_zenspider

Same place as refute_silent.

@the_zenspider

refute_silentThis block of code must print something.

What it is, I don't care.

How is this assertion of value to anyone?

Assert for the specific output you need.18

@the_zenspider

refute_silentThis block of code must print something.

Assert for the specific output you need.19

@the_zenspider

refute_raisesThis block of code must do something.

Assert for the specific result you need.20

@the_zenspider

“It's Useful”No it isn't.

Implies side effects and/or return values have been checked.

Or aren't important (always false—otherwise, why write the code?).

Falsely bumps code coverage metrics.

False sense of security.

@the_zenspider

“It's More Expressive”No it isn't.

Writing the test was the act of expression.

It is an explicit contract in any test framework that unhandled exceptions are an error.

The test's mere existence explicitly states: "there are no unhandled exceptions via these pathways".

@the_zenspider

I've been having this argument for years

@the_zenspider

Some people will never be convinced

@the_zenspider

Stand Back25

@the_zenspider

def check_everything assert_something_output do assert_nothing_raised do assert_some_side_effect do assert_some_response do yield end end end end end

@the_zenspider

def check_everything assert_something_output do assert_nothing_raised do assert_some_side_effect do assert_some_response do yield end end end end end

ISO 9001Enterprise Certified™

Available for $$$$

@the_zenspider27

@the_zenspider

minitest/spec

@the_zenspider

Testing DSL29

@the_zenspider

Test Cases are

`describe` blocks30

@the_zenspider

Tests are

`it` blocks31

@the_zenspider

Spec Examplerequire "minitest/autorun"

describe Thingy do it "must do the thing" do _(Thingy.do_the_thing).must_equal 42 end end

@the_zenspider

In Reality34

@the_zenspider

`describe` blocks are

Classes35

@the_zenspider

`it` blocks are

Methods36

@the_zenspider

Spec Examplerequire "minitest/autorun"

describe Thingy do it "must do the thing" do _(Thingy.do_the_thing).must_equal 42 end end

@the_zenspider

class TestThingy < Minitest::Test def test_0001_must_do_the_thing _(Thingy.do_the_thing).must_equal 42 end end

Specs Transform:

@the_zenspider

Simple Subclass

Specs Transform:

@the_zenspider

Simple Subclass

Simple Method

Specs Transform:

@the_zenspider

Magic Free!

Simple Subclass

Simple Method

Specs Transform:

@the_zenspider

Positive Expectationsmust_be

must_be_close_to

must_be_empty

must_be_instance_of

must_be_kind_of

must_be_nil

must_be_same_as

must_be_silent*

must_be_within_delta

must_be_within_epsilon

must_equal

must_include

must_match

must_output*

must_raise*

must_respond_to

must_send*

must_throw*

@the_zenspider

Negative Expectationswont_be

wont_be_close_to

wont_be_empty

wont_be_instance_of

wont_be_kind_of

wont_be_nil

wont_be_same_as

wont_be_silent

wont_be_within_delta

wont_be_within_epsilon

wont_equal

wont_include

wont_match

wont_output

wont_raise

wont_respond_to

wont_send

wont_throw

@the_zenspider

All for Freemust_equal is assert_equal

wont_equal is refute_equal

@the_zenspider

Advanced Testing

@the_zenspider

Randomization Baked In

@the_zenspider

Preventing Test Order Dependencies

@the_zenspider

parallelize_me!45

@the_zenspider

Turn up the test levels

Randomize Test Order

Require Proof of Success?

Forced Parallelization

Disallow meaningless assertions

test + spec

Benchmark TestsUse gem, not stdlib

tor to

testca

@the_zenspider

Design Rationale

@the_zenspider

It's Just Ruby™48

@the_zenspider

Look! Ruby!

@the_zenspider

Less is More50

@the_zenspider

def assert_in_delta e, a, d = 0.001, m = nil n = (e - a).abs msg = message(m) { "... failure message ..." } assert delta >= n, msg end

assert_in_delta

@the_zenspider

assert_in_delta

message takes a block to defer

calculation until an assertion fails

@the_zenspider

assert_in_delta

simple assertion is all that is needed

@the_zenspider

assert_in_delta

Only 2 other methods need to be understood:assert (9) & message (6)

simple assertion is all that is needed

@the_zenspider

Indirection is the Enemy

@the_zenspider

Just 2 Hopsmodule Minitest::Expectation def must_equal(*args) ctx.assert_equal(*args) end end

module Minitest::Assertions def assert_equal exp, act, msg = nil msg = message(msg, E) { diff exp, act } assert exp == act, msg end end

@the_zenspider

No Magic Allowed

@the_zenspider

Thriving Plugin Ecosystemminitest-chef-handler

minitest-reporters

minitest-rails

guard-minitest

minitest-spec-rails

minitest-capybara

spork-minitest

minitest-metadata

minitest-rails-capybara

minitest-matchers

capybara_minitest_spec

minitest-colorize

minitest-rg

minitest-ci

(& many more)

@the_zenspider

Rails & Minitest

@the_zenspider

The Official Rails Stack™

uses Minitest57

@the_zenspider

Each Release58

@the_zenspider

Peels back the testing

onion59

https://www.flickr.com/photos/darwinbell/303874154

@the_zenspider

Encouraging better testing practices

@the_zenspider

Peeling onions make

you cry61

https://www.flickr.com/photos/marleahjoy/13153221935

@the_zenspider

Right?62

@the_zenspider

(Hopefully) Not Here

@the_zenspider

Rails 4.0 minitest 4.x

@the_zenspider

Impact? Zero

@the_zenspider

Rails 4.1 minitest 5.x

@the_zenspider

Impact? Zero

@the_zenspider

Rails 4.2 random order

@the_zenspider

Some Impact?69

@the_zenspider

Good Thing™!70

@the_zenspider

Future Rails Should track minitest.

@the_zenspider

As a Rails Dev72

@the_zenspider

What does all of this

mean?73

@the_zenspider

Hopefully...74

@the_zenspider

Nothing75

@the_zenspider

ActiveSupport ::TestCase

@the_zenspider

Minitest::Test

ActiveSupport::TestCase

MyThingyTest

Basic Architecture

@the_zenspider

Per-test database transactions

@the_zenspider

Fixtures# In fixtures/categories.yml about: name: About # In fixtures/articles.yml one: title: Welcome to Rails! body: Hello world! category: about

@the_zenspider

Declarative Formssetup do # ... end

teardown do # ... end

test “test name” do # ... end

@the_zenspider

Extra Assertionsassert_difference

assert_valid_keys

assert_deprecated

assert_nothing_raised81

@the_zenspider

Wait? What?!?82

@the_zenspider

Don't Worry! def assert_nothing_raised(*args) yield end

@the_zenspider

Don't Worry! def assert_nothing_raised(*args) yield end

ActualImplementation

@the_zenspider

Unit Testingrequire 'test_helper' class ArticleTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase test "should not save article without title" do article = Article.new refute article.save end end

@the_zenspider

ActionController ::TestCase

@the_zenspider

Basic Architecture

Minitest::Test

MyControllerTest

ActionController::TestCase

@the_zenspider

Actionsget

delete

@the_zenspider

Staterequest

response

session

flash88

@the_zenspider

Assertionsassert_response

assert_redirected_to

assert_template

@the_zenspider

Functional Testingclass ArticlesControllerTest < ActionController::TestCase test "should get index" do get :index assert_response :success assert_not_nil assigns(:articles) end end

@the_zenspider

ActiveDispatch ::IntegrationTest

@the_zenspider

Minitest::Test

MyIntegrationTest

ActionDispatch::IntegrationTest

Architecture

@the_zenspider

Assertions

Tons93

@the_zenspider

Integration Testingclass UserFlowsTest < ActionDispatch::IntegrationTest test "login and browse site" do https! get "/login" assert_response :success david = users :david post_via_redirect "/login", username: david.username, password: david.password assert_equal '/welcome', path assert_equal 'Welcome david!', flash[:notice] https! false get "/articles/all" assert_response :success assert assigns :articles end end

@the_zenspider

http://guides.rubyonrails.org/

testing.html95

@the_zenspider

Very Simple96

@the_zenspider

Very Powerful97

@the_zenspider

Leverages Minitest

@the_zenspider

Test Randomization

@the_zenspider

Parallelization100

@the_zenspider

Enforce Better Testing

@the_zenspider

Troubleshooting

@the_zenspider

I want to use minitest, but I

prefer spec-style…103

@the_zenspider

Simple104

@the_zenspider

minitest-rails105

@the_zenspider

minitest-spec-rails

@the_zenspider

Lets you do this:describe User do let(:user) { User.create! ... }

it "does the thing to the stuff" do user.username.must_match(/.../) end end

@the_zenspider

I upgraded to rails 4.2 and now I have

failures108

@the_zenspider

AKA: you broke all my

shit109

@the_zenspider

Not as Simple110

@the_zenspider

Test-Order Dependency Bug

@the_zenspider

ran: a, b, c = pass ran: b, a, c = fail

@the_zenspider

Easy!113

@the_zenspider

“But, I have hundreds of tests!”

@the_zenspider

Not so Easy115

@the_zenspider

minitest-bisect116

@the_zenspider

Helps you isolate and debug

random test failures117

@the_zenspider118

@the_zenspider

I'm used to RSpec + factory-girl + this + that

+ kitchen sink + everything

@the_zenspider

A lot of stuff Just Works™

@the_zenspider

Look for plugins in readme / gems

@the_zenspider

My Suggestion?122

@the_zenspider

Less Complicated Testing

@the_zenspider

Try It124

@the_zenspider

You Might Like It

@the_zenspider

Change Takes Time

@the_zenspider

Why use minitest?

@the_zenspider

“Why Test?” aka

“It slows me down”128

@the_zenspider

Not Going to Bother

@the_zenspider

Lost Cause130

@the_zenspider

I'd rather help other people

@the_zenspider

“Everyone Uses RSpec”

@the_zenspider

Obviously Not133

@the_zenspider

The Official Rails Stack™

uses Minitest134

@the_zenspider

DHH uses minitest

@the_zenspider

tenderlove uses minitest

@the_zenspider

Jeff Casimir & cohort teach minitest at

Turing School137

@the_zenspider

nokogiri, haml, god, newrelic_rpm, sqlite3

@the_zenspider

etc139

@the_zenspider

Functional Differences with

RSpec140

@the_zenspider

Unique Features of RSpecTest metadata & metadata filtering.

Fancier expectations, negation, etc.

Shared contexts & example groups.

Implicit subject, described_class, etc.

before(:all) & around(:each).

Fancier mocking.

Fancier reporting.141

@the_zenspider

Unique Features of RSpecTest metadata & metadata filtering.

Fancier expectations, negation, etc.

Shared contexts & example groups.

Implicit subject, described_class, etc.

before(:all) & around(:each).

Fancier mocking.

Fancier reporting.141

Basically, it's Fancier

@the_zenspider

Unique Features of MinitestUnit & Spec Style Testing.

Über-Duper fast and lightweight.

Easy to understand whole library.

minitest/pride.

Benchmark tests.

First to randomize

parallelize_me! & minitest/hell

Clean & easy plugin system.

Smallest mock/stub framework.

@the_zenspider

minitest/pride.

Benchmark tests.

First to randomize

Simple, Pragmatic

@the_zenspider

minitest/pride.

Benchmark tests.

First to randomize

Simple, Pragmaticand a bit Snarky

@the_zenspider

Cognitive differences with

RSpec143

@the_zenspider

Myron Marston144

@the_zenspider

Great Comparison

@the_zenspider146

4/17/15, 16:45ruby on rails - Minitest and Rspec - Stack Overflow

of 1http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12470601/minitest-and-rspec

sign up log in tour help stack overflow careers

Take the 2-minute tour ×Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's 100% free, noregistration required.

Minitest and Rspec [closed]

I have just watched a for Minitest.Railscast

What are the pros and cons for using RSpec vs Minitest for testing a rails app? Which features will I lose converting from RSpec to Minitest?

ruby-on-rails ruby testing rspec minitest

edited Aug 24 '13 at 14:16juanitofatas2,013 1 12 27

asked Sep 18 '12 at 4:55GTDev1,746 1 24 58

as not constructive by , , , , closed Abizern andrewsi Andrew Sean Cheshire ЯegDwight Sep 18 '12 at 19:40As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likelysolicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, for guidance.visit the help center

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the , please .help center edit the question

– See e.g. stackoverflow.com/questions/8423227/… matt Sep 18 '12 at 5:05

– Perhaps these 2 questions should be merged, is there a way of merging questions? Boris Stitnicky Sep18 '12 at 5:10

9 – Closed with +12 votes!!! voting to open. Anoop Vaidya Apr 18 '13 at 18:10

– the problem with close votes is that they are usually not very constructive... nus May 24 '14 at 1:45

2 Answers

I'm one of the RSpec developers, and have never used minitest, so take my biases intoaccount when reading this answer.

By and large, RSpec's power comes from the fact that it reifies so many testing concepts intofirst class objects. Where Test::Unit and Minitest use simple methods for making assertions,RSpec uses first-class matcher objects that support negation, self-description and more.RSpec's examples are first-class objects that support rich metadata; minitest/spec compiles

blocks down into simple methods, which don't support the same sort of rich metadata.RSpec supports specifying shared behaviors using a first-class construct (shared examplegroups) that accepts arguments; w/ minitest you can use

, but it doesn't have the same sort of first-class support. RSpec has an explicit formatterAPI (and there are many third party formatters that use it); I'm not aware of minitest having thesame sort of first-class formatter API.

inheritance or a mixin to re-usetests

As somebody who is constantly running tests and practicing TDD all day long, I find thepower RSpec gives me to be very useful. Many people find it to be overkill, though, and thereis an added cognitive cost to the extra abstractions.

Here are some specific features RSpec has that I believe minitest lacks:

hooks (note this is a power user feature of RSpec that should rarely beused; I've only used it on a few occasions in many years of using RSpec)before(:all)

hooksaround(:each)

Shared example groupsShared contextsRich metadata support that can be used to control which examples get run, whichexample groups shared contexts get included in, which example groups modules getmixed into and more.Integrated support for a wide range of mocking features w/ rspec-mocks; Minitest::Mockis far simpler and more limited in comparison.RSpec has , which is awesome.rspec-fire

Benefits of using Minitest:

It's built into the standard library so you don't need to install anything extra.It can either be used in or styles.def test_blah it 'blah'

The code base is very small and simple. RSpec, by virtue of it's older age and additionalfeatures, is larger in comparison.Minitest loads faster than RSpec (it's about 4 files of code compared to RSpec havingmany files spread across 3 gems)--but note that RSpec is by no means slow; in most ofmy projects these days, I get test feedback from RSpec in under a second (and often inunder 500 ms).

Overall, it's a bit like Sinatra vs. Rails, and I think Minitest and RSpec are both fine choicesdepending on your needs.

One last thing: if there are specific aspects of Minitest you like better, but other things you likebetter about RSpec, they can easily be mixed and matched. I , ifyou're interested.

wrote a blog post about this

answered Sep 18 '12 at 16:00Myron Marston11.3k 2 30 42

– Thanks for amazing explanation. Boris Stitnicky Sep 18 '12 at 16:14

Keep in mind Boris that if want to integrate MiniTest with Spork, Guard, Capybara, and any kind ofJavascript driver, you can plan on spending an entire week trying to figure it out and get it stable. MiniTestis not ready for primetime when it comes to having a complete testing stack for anything but the mostrudimentary of Rails applications. I gave it the old college try myself but it just ended in frustration.AKWF May 2 '13 at 19:58

I converted to spec-style Minitest from with , and it pays off. It doesaway with boilerplate and they say it also improves speed. I never really used RSpec. Instead,I wrote my own primitive testing and mocking framework (just for the purpose ofunderstanding mocking, I abandoned it upon switching to Minitest). I think thatstubbing/mocking in RSpec might be more advanced, so if you already learned it, justcontinue using it. Otherwise, stick with Minitest, which will enable you to collaborate withpeople ignorant of RSpec, such as me.

Test/Unit shoulda

edited Aug 12 '14 at 4:15 answered Sep 18 '12 at 5:07Boris Stitnicky6,632 2 23 45

by protected Tats_innit Sep 14 '14 at 6:37Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these instead?

reputation

unanswered questions

@the_zenspider146

4/17/15, 16:45ruby on rails - Minitest and Rspec - Stack Overflow

of 1http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12470601/minitest-and-rspec

sign up log in tour help stack overflow careers

Take the 2-minute tour ×Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's 100% free, noregistration required.

Minitest and Rspec [closed]

I have just watched a for Minitest.Railscast

What are the pros and cons for using RSpec vs Minitest for testing a rails app? Which features will I lose converting from RSpec to Minitest?

ruby-on-rails ruby testing rspec minitest

edited Aug 24 '13 at 14:16juanitofatas2,013 1 12 27

asked Sep 18 '12 at 4:55GTDev1,746 1 24 58

as not constructive by , , , , closed Abizern andrewsi Andrew Sean Cheshire ЯegDwight Sep 18 '12 at 19:40As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likelysolicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, for guidance.visit the help center

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the , please .help center edit the question

– See e.g. stackoverflow.com/questions/8423227/… matt Sep 18 '12 at 5:05

– Perhaps these 2 questions should be merged, is there a way of merging questions? Boris Stitnicky Sep18 '12 at 5:10

9 – Closed with +12 votes!!! voting to open. Anoop Vaidya Apr 18 '13 at 18:10

– the problem with close votes is that they are usually not very constructive... nus May 24 '14 at 1:45

2 Answers

I'm one of the RSpec developers, and have never used minitest, so take my biases intoaccount when reading this answer.

By and large, RSpec's power comes from the fact that it reifies so many testing concepts intofirst class objects. Where Test::Unit and Minitest use simple methods for making assertions,RSpec uses first-class matcher objects that support negation, self-description and more.RSpec's examples are first-class objects that support rich metadata; minitest/spec compiles

blocks down into simple methods, which don't support the same sort of rich metadata.RSpec supports specifying shared behaviors using a first-class construct (shared examplegroups) that accepts arguments; w/ minitest you can use

, but it doesn't have the same sort of first-class support. RSpec has an explicit formatterAPI (and there are many third party formatters that use it); I'm not aware of minitest having thesame sort of first-class formatter API.

inheritance or a mixin to re-usetests

As somebody who is constantly running tests and practicing TDD all day long, I find thepower RSpec gives me to be very useful. Many people find it to be overkill, though, and thereis an added cognitive cost to the extra abstractions.

Here are some specific features RSpec has that I believe minitest lacks:

hooks (note this is a power user feature of RSpec that should rarely beused; I've only used it on a few occasions in many years of using RSpec)before(:all)

hooksaround(:each)

Shared example groupsShared contextsRich metadata support that can be used to control which examples get run, whichexample groups shared contexts get included in, which example groups modules getmixed into and more.Integrated support for a wide range of mocking features w/ rspec-mocks; Minitest::Mockis far simpler and more limited in comparison.RSpec has , which is awesome.rspec-fire

Benefits of using Minitest:

It's built into the standard library so you don't need to install anything extra.It can either be used in or styles.def test_blah it 'blah'

The code base is very small and simple. RSpec, by virtue of it's older age and additionalfeatures, is larger in comparison.Minitest loads faster than RSpec (it's about 4 files of code compared to RSpec havingmany files spread across 3 gems)--but note that RSpec is by no means slow; in most ofmy projects these days, I get test feedback from RSpec in under a second (and often inunder 500 ms).

Overall, it's a bit like Sinatra vs. Rails, and I think Minitest and RSpec are both fine choicesdepending on your needs.

One last thing: if there are specific aspects of Minitest you like better, but other things you likebetter about RSpec, they can easily be mixed and matched. I , ifyou're interested.

wrote a blog post about this

answered Sep 18 '12 at 16:00Myron Marston11.3k 2 30 42

– Thanks for amazing explanation. Boris Stitnicky Sep 18 '12 at 16:14

Keep in mind Boris that if want to integrate MiniTest with Spork, Guard, Capybara, and any kind ofJavascript driver, you can plan on spending an entire week trying to figure it out and get it stable. MiniTestis not ready for primetime when it comes to having a complete testing stack for anything but the mostrudimentary of Rails applications. I gave it the old college try myself but it just ended in frustration.AKWF May 2 '13 at 19:58

I converted to spec-style Minitest from with , and it pays off. It doesaway with boilerplate and they say it also improves speed. I never really used RSpec. Instead,I wrote my own primitive testing and mocking framework (just for the purpose ofunderstanding mocking, I abandoned it upon switching to Minitest). I think thatstubbing/mocking in RSpec might be more advanced, so if you already learned it, justcontinue using it. Otherwise, stick with Minitest, which will enable you to collaborate withpeople ignorant of RSpec, such as me.

Test/Unit shoulda

edited Aug 12 '14 at 4:15 answered Sep 18 '12 at 5:07Boris Stitnicky6,632 2 23 45

by protected Tats_innit Sep 14 '14 at 6:37Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these instead?

reputation

unanswered questions

@the_zenspider

Apparently, I'm @tenderlove

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3522/3274006022_0c72c24508_o.jpg

@the_zenspider

Apparently, I'm @tenderlove

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3522/3274006022_0c72c24508_o.jpg

@the_zenspider

TL;DR148

@the_zenspider149

By and large, RSpec's power comes from the fact that it reifies so many testing concepts into first class objects. Where Test::Unit and Minitest use simple methods for making assertions, RSpec uses first-class matcher objects that support negation, self-description and more. RSpec's examples are first-class objects that support rich metadata; minitest/spec compiles it blocks down into simple methods, which don't support the same sort of rich metadata. RSpec supports specifying shared behaviors using a first-class construct (shared example groups) that accepts arguments; w/ minitest you can use inheritance or a mixin to re-use tests, but it doesn't have the same sort of first-class support.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12470601/minitest-and-rspec

@the_zenspider

Myron thinks this is why RSpec is great

@the_zenspider

I think it is everything wrong with RSpec

@the_zenspider

We're Both Right

@the_zenspider

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am

large, I contain multitudes." —Walt Whitman

@the_zenspider154

By and large, RSpec's power comes from the fact that it reifies so many testing concepts into first class objects. Where Test::Unit and Minitest use simple methods for making assertions, RSpec uses first-class matcher objects that support negation, self-description and more. RSpec's examples are first-class objects that support rich metadata; minitest/spec compiles it blocks down into simple methods, which don't support the same sort of rich metadata. RSpec supports specifying shared behaviors using a first-class construct (shared example groups) that accepts arguments; w/ minitest you can use inheritance or a mixin to re-use tests, but it doesn't have the same sort of first-class support.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12470601/minitest-and-rspec

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups

Examples

Expectations

Minitest RSpec

* my interpretation, not a quote

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups

Examples

Expectations

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups compiles describe blocks down into simple classes*

reifies testing concepts into first class objects*

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups

Examples

Expectations

Minitest RSpec

Examples compiles it blocks down into simple methods

examples are first-class objects

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups

Examples

Expectations

Minitest RSpec

Reuse you can use inheritance or a mixin

specifying shared behaviors using a first-class construct

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups

Examples

Expectations

Minitest RSpec

Expectations use simple methods for making assertions

uses first-class matcher objects

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups compiles describe blocks down into simple methods

reifies testing concepts into first class objects

Minitest RSpec

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Example Groups Class 1st Class Object

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Examples Method 1st Class Object

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Reuse Subclass or Include 1st Class Object

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

Expectations Method Call 1st Class Object

@the_zenspider157

“1st Class”You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

@the_zenspider

A language construct is said to be a FirstClass value in that language when there are no restrictions on how it can be created and used: when

the construct can be treated as a value without restrictions.

FirstClass features can be stored in variables, passed as arguments to functions, created within functions and returned from functions. In

dynamically typed languages, a FirstClass feature can also have its type examined at run-time.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FirstClass

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

It's Just Ruby™

@the_zenspider

Minitest RSpec

It's Just Ruby™

Reinvents the Wheel

@the_zenspider

Nested Describesdescribe A do before { :a } it "runs :a"

describe B do before { :b } it "runs :a, :b" end end

@the_zenspider

Inherited "methods"

@the_zenspider

Inherited "methods"

NOT Inherited "methods"

@the_zenspider

Are A & B classes? Is Nesting like Subclassing?

@the_zenspider

Classes?class TestA < RSpec::Spec def before super :a end

def test_runs_a; end end

class TestB < TestA def before super :b end

undef_method :test_runs_a

def test_runs_a_b; end end

@the_zenspider

Classes?class TestA < RSpec::Spec def before super :a end

class TestB < TestA def before super :b end

undef_method :test_runs_a

@the_zenspider

Are before/after like included modules?

@the_zenspider

Modules?class TestA < RSpec::Spec module BeforeAfter def setup super if respond_to? :super :a end end

include TestA::BeforeAfter

class TestB < RSpec::Spec module BeforeAfter def setup super if respond_to? :super :b end end

include TestA::BeforeAfter include TestB::BeforeAfter

@the_zenspider

This is basically Another Object Model

@the_zenspider

That's Confusing if you're just learning

Ruby/OO166

@the_zenspider

Encourages new users to handwave

@the_zenspider

To not know what #describe or #it actually are or do

@the_zenspider

“Here's the Magic Incantation to do X”

@the_zenspider

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable

from magic.” —A.C. Clarke

@the_zenspider

RSpec: It’s actually Magic

@the_zenspider172

“Many people find it to be overkill, though, and there is an added cognitive cost to the extra abstractions.”

—Myron Marsten, from previous post

@the_zenspider

Indeed173

@the_zenspider174

*/lib Minitest RSpec Multiplier# Files 14 177 12.64Flog 2,005.0 13,274.3 6.62

Lines of Code 1,589 15,095 9.50Lines of Comment 1,063 7,566 7.12Comment + Code 2,652 22,661 8.54Comment/Code 0.66 0.50 N/A

@the_zenspider175

3500.0

7000.0

10500.0

14000.0

Minitest RSpec

@the_zenspider176

15,000

22,500

30,000

Minitest RSpec

Lines of Code Lines of Comment

@the_zenspider177

@the_zenspider

@the_zenspider178

“Many people find it to be overkill, though, and there is an added cognitive cost to the extra abstractions.”

—Myron Marsten, from previous post

@the_zenspider

Not just cognitive!

@the_zenspider

Performance differences with

RSpec180

@the_zenspider

All those abstractions?

@the_zenspider

Reinventing the wheel?

@the_zenspider

Has a Real Cost183

@the_zenspider

Combined Minitest Results

100.00

# tests

500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

pos mt time pos mt memory1neg mt time 1neg mt memory50neg mt time 50neg mt memory100neg mt time 100neg mt memory

Combined RSpec Results

150.00

225.00

300.00

100.00

# tests

500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

pos rs time pos rs memory1neg rs time 1neg rs memory50neg rs time 50neg rs memory100neg rs time 100neg rs memory

@the_zenspider

Combined RSpec Results

150.00

225.00

300.00

100.00

# tests

500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

pos rs time pos rs memory1neg rs time 1neg rs memory50neg rs time 50neg rs memory100neg rs time 100neg rs memory

Combined Minitest Results

150.00

225.00

300.00

100.00

# tests

500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

pos mt time pos mt memory1neg mt time 1neg mt memory50neg mt time 50neg mt memory100neg mt time 100neg mt memory

@the_zenspider

But Ryan...186

@the_zenspider

Who cares?187

@the_zenspider

Passing rspec is fast enough

@the_zenspider

Bug?Refactor?

@the_zenspider

Bug?Refactor?

Anything else goes wrong?189

@the_zenspider

You Pay190

@the_zenspider

For Completeness:

@the_zenspider

Expectation Speed

Minitest vs RSpec, time & memory (assertions)

1 test, # assertions

mt timers time

@the_zenspider

Minitest vs RSpec, time

# tests, 0 assertions

mt timers time Method

Execution Speed

@the_zenspider

Linear194

@the_zenspider

Don't reduce examples or expectations

@the_zenspider

If you want a speed up

@the_zenspider

Switch to minitest

@the_zenspider

Or never, ever refactor.

@the_zenspider

Summary199

@the_zenspider

At the end of the day…

@the_zenspider

As long as you test

@the_zenspider

I don't care what you use

@the_zenspider

Use the best tool for your job

@the_zenspider

Hopefully, I've shown

@the_zenspider

The technical merits of Minitest

@the_zenspider

Choose what works for you

@the_zenspider

Not because it seems popular

@the_zenspider

Maybe there's fewer articles about MT because there's less need for them?

@the_zenspider

MT is much easier to understand.

@the_zenspider

MT users aren't missing.

@the_zenspider

They're busy Getting Stuff Done.

@the_zenspider

Choose what works for you

@the_zenspider

Who knows?213

@the_zenspider

Try It214

@the_zenspider

Ruby on Rails on Minitest.key

Documents

Ruby On Rails - 1. Ruby Introduction

Ruby on Rails by Manik Juneja Ruby On Rails. Ruby on Rails by Manik Juneja Rails is a Web Application development framework. Based on the MVC pattern

Ruby on Rails

Ruby on Rails no Brasil (PPT) - Ruby on Rails

Ruby On Rails Introduction [Εισαγωγή στο Rails]

Ruby (on Rails)

Ruby on Rails [ Ruby On Rails.ppt ] - [Ruby - [Ruby-Doc.org

Introduction to Ruby, Rails, and Ruby on Rails

Ruby on Rails [ Ruby On Rails.ppt ] - [Ruby-Doc.org: Documenting

BCR Ruby on Rails - Boston Computing Review : Ruby on Rails

Ruby On Rails - 2. Rails Introduction

Ruby (on Rails)

Ruby on rails porque usar rails?!

Ruby On Rails - 3. Rails Addons