http://www.lindsaar.net/2008/6/24/tip-24-being-clever-in-specs-is-for-dummies

That post is fantastic. Thanks!

Couldn't agree more with that post... For instance, restful_authentication now comes with specs, but, ehrm... See for yourself: http://pastie.org/222670

haha.  I have no idea what's going on there.

This is slightly OT.. but looking at those specs brings up one of my other pet peeves, and that is excluding the "should" from the specs. I have seen a lot of projects and developers that I respect highly not use the word "should" in there specs. I have accepted it as just one of those things that people disagree on, but I think there is a lot of value of having the "should". For one it makes removing the example easier when it becomes incorrect (meaning, the expected behaviour has changed.) I guess I just see the "should" as being a bigger part of BDD than some people.

Am I the only one who thinks this or what are the arguments for not using 'should'?

I've been meaning to ask the list about this for a while now.

I don't always use "should", but I've been trying to come up with a standard way to approach the Rails has_one, has_many, etc. as opposed to methods on the object such as name, description etc. What I mean is that I want to write specs so that I know if something refers to an associated object or not, without resorting to writing technically oriented specs that define implementation rather than behavior. "project should have an owner" unfortunately doesn't let me know if it's a method that returns a value, or a method that returns another object. Does anyone have advice or experience in writing the specs to provide that kind of information?

I hope this isn't too much of a thread hijack.
But to bring it back around, I totally agree with the article, and it's particularly apropos for open source projects (assuming the project owner wants new users to get involved in development)

-Jim
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Reply via email to