[rspec-devel] describe-it: what do we call our files?

[David Chelimsky]

On 3/21/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the 0.9-dev branch the context-specify pair has been largely
> replaced by describe-it, thanks to a brilliant suggestion by Dan
> North.
>
> I've been writing err TESTS ;-) in this format for a while now, and I
> really dig it. It pushes me even further to think about behaviour,
> because it *reads* much better than before:
>
> describe "Coffee for Aslak" do # Creates a new Spec::DSL::Behaviour
>   it "should never have sugar" do # Creates a new Spec::DSL::Example
>     ...
>   end
> end
>
> So far so good. My question to the list is:
>
> Assuming describe-it is the recommended way forward, how should we
> name our files?
> I'm leaning towards coffee_behaviour.rb.

Great idea. I think we should support this, but in addition to *_spec,
at least for the foreseeable future.

>
> Is this the end of specs and speccing/spec'ing and the start of
> behaviours and examplifications?

I like "example" over "specification" because "specification" has
always carried some baggage with it. Example is a word that Brian
Marick (http://www.exampler.com/) has been using for years, and I
think it resonates with what we're trying to do here.

I'm mostly there re: "behaviour" as the outer block, but there are
some things about it that don't quite roll off the tongue correctly.
For example, we don't setup a behaviour. In fact, we set up a context
for a behaviour. It does work really well, however, when you think
"describe Behaviour, it (should) Example".

Other thoughts?


>
> (We'll support context-specify for a while still)
>
> WDYT?
>
> Aslak
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>