dchelimsky at gmail.com
Wed Aug 9 17:33:26 EDT 2006
On 8/9/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> We all hate the T word. We have a few alternatives for it. Whatever
> word we end up with, I think it's important that the word:
> o fits well with the BDD mantra and vocabulary
> o and this ruby framework's name be aligned
> o can be used effectively in conversations between (possibly
> non-trechnical) people
> Here is my take on some of them
> == Spec ==
> Pro: Fits well with the RSpec name
> Con: Not so easy to 'talk' about
> Con: Doesn't underline the Behavioural gist of BDD
We're there now and we all struggle w/ it. I don't think there's a
problem w/ the name. The only other good names have example or behave
in them, and that's sort of Brain and Dan's territory.
> == Example ==
> Pro: Easy to talk about
> Con: Doesn't fit with the RSpec name
> Con: doesn't fit with BDD lingo
I don't really care about the name that much. We can still call it a
spec framework that allows you to automate examples of the spec. I
also don't think that it conflicts w/ the BDD lingo. Dan's using
scenario, but that carries more baggage than "test" does ("scenario
testing"). Saying that we break down a story into examples sounds
close enough to breaking it into scenarios for my money.
> == Behaviour ==
> Pro: Fits with the BDD lingo
> Con: May be hard to talk about in some situations / with some people
> Con: Doesn't fit the RSpec name
I think that behavior is a superset of examples. It parallels the user
story, whereas the examples map to scenarios.
> Personally I'm a fan of 'Example'. It's easy to explain to people.
Not just easy - but it makes sense from many perspectives. They are
examples of the behaviour described in the stories, and they are
examples of the actual code being specified. You can't run specs (can
you?), we don't want to run tests, but we could easily run examples.
> how would we address the two cons? For the RSpec name, we could simply
> change the name of RSpec to something else. For the mismatch with BDD
> lingo, perhaps we could start talking about "Behaviour Driven
> Development by Example"? (We give examples of the software's desired
I don't think we need to add "by Example" to start using the word.
It's still BDD, and the examples are examples of the B that we use to
D the D.
As for the name - that's tricky. Dan's already got xBehave. Brian's
website is exampleR. Then you have to consider the other languages:
and, everyone's favorite....
you get the idea.
More information about the Rspec-devel