by Arit Amana

Great RSpec-tations: why I love test-driven development

When I first wrote about Test-Driven Development, I thought I was in love with the concept… but that was just the flirting stage. Now I’ve fallen head-over-Louboutins, girlfriend! 😍

The efficiency gains from not needing to fire my app up for testing are just the beginning. Developing my apps with RSpec forces me to really think about how I’m defining and structuring my code. Furthermore, every time my tests fail, they faithfully supply tips and clues that help me troubleshoot what’s missing, broken or redundant. Now that’s a metaphor for life in general… but I digress. 😉

I’m creating an online chess app as part of an agile development team, and this week, I was tasked with building the move_to!(x,y) method. This should move a chess piece (called pawn from now on) to the chessboard square at location (x,y).

If an opponent’s piece (called king from now on) occupies (x,y), pawn should capture it. If pawn’s brother-in-arms occupies (x,y), the method should raise an error message and pawn should go nowhere.

Note: move_to!(x,y) doesn’t consider whether the moves or captures are valid. Other methods will do this.

I configured FactoryBot to generate instances of a chess game. Each chess piece has the following relevant attributes: :location_x, :location_y, :white (a boolean; true = white color), :game_id, and :notcaptured (a boolean; false = the piece has been captured). My first test determined if pawn (currently on 0,0) moved to an empty square (7,7):

Next, I began writing the move_to!(x,y) method, then ran my test:

arit (master) chessapp $ rspec spec/models/piece_spec.rb
Finished in 0.43495 seconds (files took 15.68 seconds to load)
1 example, 0 failures

Yes! No errors. 👍🏾 Next, I wrote a test to determine whether pawn stayed put if its destination was occupied by a friendly piece (we’ll call it rook):

Why aren’t I testing the values of rook.notcaptured, rook.location_x and rook.location_y? Well, the rook IS the friendly-piece in question, but what we’re actually testing is whatever piece (if any) is found by and saved in the destination variable. Now to flesh out the method:

My tests passed again! 👏🏾 Feeling very confident, I moved on to the third test: to determine if the opponent’s king was captured and whether pawn took its place:

I also completed the method:

But when I ran my tests, I received the following error:

arit (master *) chessapp $ rspec spec/models/piece_spec.rb
1) Piece captures opponent's piece on destination, then assumes that position
Failure/Error: expect(destination.notcaptured).to be false
expected false
got true
# ./spec/models/piece_spec.rb:104:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
Finished in 0.21787 seconds (files took 4.83 seconds to load)
1 example, 1 failure
Failed examples:
rspec ./spec/models/piece_spec.rb:95 # Piece captures opponent's piece on destination, then assumes that position

Wha??? destination.notcaptured was not updated? Why? I re-read my method over and over. Nothing seemed to be missing or broken (and, really, just how much could I get wrong in 11 lines of code?).

After deciding to make like a 🐢 and review my rspec test sloooowwly, it occurred to me that the destination variable was expected to change. The move_to!(x,y) method had updated its location_x, location_y and notcaptured attributes.

Then it hit me — I needed to RELOAD destination from the database back into RSpec. Then my three tests passed beautifully:

Test-Driven Development has permanently impacted my coding practice, and I relished the opportunity to turn the rest of my teammates unto it. TDD is lightweight, efficient, safe, revealing, and it helps me produce higher-quality code the first … well, okay… in as little time as possible! 😄