On 29/01/2009, at 4:27 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com
> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Nick Hoffman <n...@deadorange.com>
wrote:
I like "on_failure", as it's consistent with RSpec's output. Eg:
31 examples, 0 failures
What could be done to make the construct more sentence-like? If
used in this
manner:
it 'should do something' do
on_failure "@foo is nil" do
@foo.should_not be_nil
end
end
It reads like this to me:
If "@foo is nil" fails, execute the block.
These are a bit verbose, but what do you think these approaches?:
http://gist.github.com/54726
I'll take that gist and raise you one:
http://gist.github.com/54750 (Suggestion #3)
Upped:
http://gist.github.com/54758
Putting the message at the end is a great idea! I still think that
naming the method (and thus starting the block) with "on_failure" is a
bit misleading when read aloud...but maybe that's not a big concern
for you guys?
What do you think about this modification to #3?:
http://gist.github.com/54770
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
