2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com>: > Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers > like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have > to say.
should be || should_not be: that is the expectation: Whether 'tis nobler in the parser to interpret The outputs and side effects of outrageous duck typing, Or to inherit against a sea of matchers And by declaration extend them? To fail: to raise; No more; and by a raise to say we throw The exception and the thousand natural returns The code is heir to, 'tis a specification Devoutly to be wished. To fail: to raise; To raise, perchance to rescue: ay, there's the rub, For in that state of exception what tests may fail When we have injected in this matcher code Must give us pause: there's the RSpec That makes calamity of such long backtraces; For who would bear the Flogs and Heckles, The oppressor's Reek, the proud man's Cucumber, The pangs of despised Rcov, the spec_server's Drb, The insolence of Autotest and the spurns That patient merit of the occasional Rakes, When he himself might his validation make With a bare assertion? ..... (...And so forth. All of which is to say, before my Muse molested me, that I rather _like_ the sparse "should be" and "should_not be" specs. Simple is good, and there's a poetry about them. Keep 'em!) -- Have Fun, Steve Eley (sfe...@gmail.com) ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine http://www.escapepod.org _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
