Scott Taylor wrote:
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Bart Zonneveld wrote:
On 26-jun-2008, at 15:48, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
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'?
-Ben
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
