Stephen Eley wrote:
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? .....
Please frame that and put it on a wall somewhere. Its Quite brilliant.
--
Joseph Wilk
http://blog.josephwilk.net
(...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!)
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
