pepopowitz’s Twitter Archive—№ 3,359

…in reply to @housecor
@housecor A pattern I've picked up from ruby/rails/rspec tests goes one step further with those "after" tests -- anywhere you're tempted to write ....when X happens, that scenario instead becomes another nested describe block.
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 8 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @pepopowitz
@housecor In Rspec, you'd reach for the context function instead of describe for those. It's literally the same thing as describe, except for the semantics. A context describes a scenario; a describe describes a thing.
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 8 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @pepopowitz
@housecor so in your example it'd look like describe('auth')... describe('ssr handler')... context('when ensureAuthenticatedThrows')... it('returns 403')...
On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2022 Mar 8 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @pepopowitz
@housecor Which I think reads nicely as a story about what's expected! And it also allows you to group tests within contexts, vs repeating those lengthy "...when x happens" names.
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 8 Mood 0

…in reply to @pepopowitz
@housecor context exists in rspec but it doesn't exist in jest, so I've been using describe to apply to both _things_ & _scenarios_, but I quite like this pattern.
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 8 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @pepopowitz
@housecor I wrote about this and the let block that I wish existed in javascript tests at stevenhicks.me/blog/2021/09/what-javascript-tests-could-learn-from-rspec/. As I wrote there, it's very possible I'm pushing this pattern too far in my tests but hey when is that not the case 😅😬
Permalink On twitter.com ❤️ 1 Favorite 2022 Mar 8 Mood 0