http://virtuouscode.disqus.com/enTue, 23 Dec 2008 12:22:43 -0000http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-4591771Nice writeup. I agree with breaking out the code into separate classes here.cpjolicoeurTue, 23 Dec 2008 12:22:43 -0000http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-3252498Ruby 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.avdiThu, 23 Oct 2008 11:36:17 -0000http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-3231014Or the `slugify` method could be turned into a function, since it isn't really relevant to the `BlogPost` instance.Daniel SchierbeckWed, 22 Oct 2008 11:38:58 -0000http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-3225166Couldn'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!BenWed, 22 Oct 2008 08:13:35 -0000http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/#comment-3224830I'm glad to have at least provided a little bit inspiration for this blog post. We totally see eye-to-eye on this matter.bryanlWed, 22 Oct 2008 07:32:37 -0000