mock example

gistfile1.rb

it "should lookup by last_updated for abc files" do
  update_time = Time.now
  # create a location to match this update_time here
  file = double("file")
  file.should_receive(:extension).and_return("abc")
  file.should_receive(:last_update).and_return(update_time)
  MyClass.load_file(file).should == Location.find_by_lookup(update_time)
end

it "should lookup by extension for all other files" do
  # create a location to match the "def" extension here
  file = double("file")
  file.should_receive(:extension).twice.and_return("def")
  file.should_not_receive(:last_update)
  MyClass.load_file(file).should == Location.find_by_lookup("def")
end

Hmm. I like what you are saying Steve. I agree that compilers are glorified spell-checkers, maybe a little more (contract consistency checkers?). You could also think of it as an automatic test generator/runner, for a certain trivial class of tests. But this suggests that code written in Ruby ought to demand more unit tests be written than c# demands. I'm pretty cool with that -- leaning on good tests instead of a compiler sounds great. Does it jive with your comments about 80/20 on test coverage, too many tests are a mistake, etc? Doesn't this suggest that any decent Ruby developer ought to look at the test coverage reached by a c# dev and laugh at their piteousness?

yes, this is why Ruby is "test mad". My comment on 80/20 was more the amount of emphasis on testing behaviors vs emphasis on test coverage (w/ legacy code). When u r doing TDD, like you said, you're getting great test coverage by default. I hope all the language worlds can get together and help learn from each other rather than laugh at piteousness.

Lol, maybe they can all sing kumbaya around a camp fire too. I've got to make some time for Ruby soon, but JS and java both keep getting in the way. Oh well.

I have fond memories of singing kumbaya around a campfire