http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/ "...the three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience, and hubris." -- Larry Wall Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:56:22 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Busby SEO Test!!! Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:48:05 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-208 nice code, i'll try it asap. thank you :) nice code, i'll try it asap. thank you

]]> http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-206 cpjolicoeur Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:22:43 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-206 Nice writeup. I agree with breaking out the code into separate classes here. Nice writeup. I agree with breaking out the code into separate classes here.

]]> http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-181 avdi Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:36:17 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-181 Ruby doesn't really support the notion of free functions (it kind of fakes it, but in a way I prefer not to take advantage of in anything but quick one-off scripts). It could be a class-level method, I suppose. I still prefer the class approach, because then if you decide to mock the slugification out you're not mocking methods on the class under test. Ruby doesn't really support the notion of free functions (it kind of fakes it, but in a way I prefer not to take advantage of in anything but quick one-off scripts). It could be a class-level method, I suppose. I still prefer the class approach, because then if you decide to mock the slugification out you're not mocking methods on the class under test.

]]> http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-179 Daniel Schierbeck Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:38:58 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-179 Or the `slugify` method could be turned into a function, since it isn't really relevant to the `BlogPost` instance. Or the `slugify` method could be turned into a function, since it isn't really relevant to the `BlogPost` instance.

]]> http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-178 Ben Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:13:35 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-178 Couldn't agree more. I often hear questions about testing private methods and to me it makes no sense whatsoever. As you say: private methods are an implementation detail! Couldn't agree more. I often hear questions about testing private methods and to me it makes no sense whatsoever. As you say: private methods are an implementation detail!

]]> http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-177 bryanl Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:32:37 +0000 http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-177 I'm glad to have at least provided a little bit inspiration for this blog post. We totally see eye-to-eye on this matter. I'm glad to have at least provided a little bit inspiration for this blog post. We totally see eye-to-eye on this matter.

]]>