Skip to main content

Ruby: Why I Prefer Cucumber

I've been struggling to articulate why, in most cases, I prefer high-level integration tests with Cucumber and Webrat (or Capybara) over low-level model, view, and controller tests with RSpec. I think I finally have an example that conveys what I'm trying to say. Consider the following Cucumber test:
Scenario: create a new film unsuccessfully
Given I am logged in as "admin"
And I am on the admin films page

When I follow "New film"
And I press "Create"
Then I should see "There were problems with the following fields:"
And I should see "Name can't be blank"
And I should see "Url name can't be blank"
And I should see "Sort name can't be blank"
And I should see "URL doesn't look like a valid RTMPE URL"
But I should not see "Trailer URL doesn't look like a valid RTMPE URL"
And I should not see "Scene URL doesn't look like a valid RTMPE URL"
This test is short, readable, and easy to write. It doesn't test every possible validation failure, and it's not the only test I have. (In fact, I have some RSpec model tests that test the more esoteric URL validation rules.) However, it does test the model, view, and controller's handling of validation failures, and it even tests that they integrate with each other.

Can you imagine trying to write the same tests by separately testing the model, view, and controller using RSpec? Now, imagine trying to use a separate test for each assertion. That's a lot of code for something so trivial--this ain't rocket science, guys! Finally, remember that when you test the things separately, there's nothing preventing the code from crashing when you put all the pieces together. (For instance, what happens if the controller and view each pass their RSpec tests, but they disagree on the spelling of one of the assigns?)

Is there benefit to testing things separately--absolutely. Is it worth it in this case--absolutely not. I think it's important to remember that at a certain level, our job is to implement features that work. Tests are a means to an end--they help us keep the code working. They don't really have any intrinsic value for the stakeholder. They only have the secondary value of keeping the code working when it is extended.

Just as there is engineering value in implementing features using less code (as long as it remains readable), there is also engineering value in implementing features using less testing code (as long as the tests continue to serve their purpose of preventing regressions).

My point is that Cucumber lets you test more using less effort.


I completely agree. Tests are important, but too much time testing is less time designing. Test smarter not harder.

That being said, I don't really believe in testing views. I can see testing for a few key elements, but views change so rapidly that they aren't worth testing. A redesign can break all of your view tests. In addition, view tests can't give you a feel for the site, its UI, UX, and responsiveness. This is where actual browser-based testing is crucial.

Also, an example such as yours is best left to Rspec. In this case you are actually testing a model and its validations.

Of course, it's just an example, but view testing tends to be a black hole with very little payoff.
jjinux said…
David, I am not a fan of testing views for the same reasons you mentioned. That's not what Cucumber is really about. It's about testing the whole stack. For instance, an RSpec test for your model's validations can't test that your controller even resulted in a call to validate the model.
Shailen Tuli said…
Your tests do what you want them to, obviously. But why test these things anyway? Presumably you have validation directives in your model and want to confirm that the right error messages are generated. But isn't that really testing Rails internals? If you write custom validation in your model, you should have tests for that (using RSpec). But how much value is there in testing boilerplate validation messages?
jjinux said…
I'm not checking that Rails is working. I'm checking that validations are actually happening as I think they're happening. It's really easy to type code that you think is working, but is actually failing silently (e.g. this can happen if you misspell a keyword argument). Ruby is especially prone to this. Unless you check that Ruby did the right thing, I don't think you should trust it.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p