I like the it "should..." do end calls, specifiy as well makes sense.
So what is the problem? I think we should take a look at what comments are for.
Essentially the "should blah" text acts as a comment on the spec. One
that is then picked up by RSpec and inserted to make our
specifications mor
Well in that specific case, please seems like a good choice
please do
@thing.should be_somthing
end
But If you had text in between then it wouldn't seem the same:
please "whatever text" do
@thing.should be_something
end
Quoting David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> H
On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey all,
I see examples showing up that look like this:
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
@thing = Thing.new
end
it do
@thing.should be_something
end
end
This will produce output like this:
Thing
- should be something
David Chelimsky wrote:
> Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
> perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?
Personally, I disagree. For examples like that, I think 'specify' is a
pretty ideal word. It reads exactly as I want it to. Depending on what
On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey all,
I see examples showing up that look like this:
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
@thing = Thing.new
end
it do
@thing.should be_something
end
end
This will produce output like this:
Thing
- should be something
Hey all,
I see examples showing up that look like this:
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
@thing = Thing.new
end
it do
@thing.should be_something
end
end
This will produce output like this:
Thing
- should be something
But "it do" is driving me mad :(
We need a better word. O
