[rspec-devel] directory structure/naming

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 12:31:14 EDT 2008

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>> Hey all - we seem to have landed on "features", "scenarios" and "code
>> examples" as the proper names for talking about ... well ... features,
>> scenarios and code examples. If you don't know what I mean by those
>> things, then maybe we still have a problem, but I'm guessing most of
>> you do.
>> So I'm thinking of a new directory structure:
>> app-root
>>> behaviour
>>>> code-examples
>>>> features
>> I've always wanted to group these things together, but
>> behaviour/examples never worked for me as behaviour/code-examples
>> does.
>> WDYT?
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-devel mailing list
>> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>  I really like the idea of grouping the two in a 'behaviour' directory.
> I tend to have helpers that I use in both my examples and my features so
> placing them both in the same directory makes sense from an organization
> point of view.  (Plus, I really like having the name be 'behaviour'--
> even if it is spelled wrong. :p)
> I agree that the term code-examples is far less ambiguous than just
> plain 'examples'.  The fact that we refer to them as examples and even
> rspec internally treats them as examples does beg the question on how we
> got stuck with specs in the first place.

Steve Baker noted that Uncle Bob was saying "specify, don't verify"
and took that to heart when he named it. We all just rolled with it
and now it's a sorta well known brand. Changing the name would suck.

That said, I think we can keep the name of the library while changing
the underlying conventions. Though I'm sure Dan would like it to
become rbehave :)

> While I like the idea of
> code-examples I think that will be a much harder transition because so
> many people are used to the name 'spec' at this point (including
> myself.)  What is the main argument for ditching spec in favor of
> code-example?  Less baggage?

Baggage, yes. Spec means "specification" as in "4 months of meetings
before writing any code" to a lot of people. It also means "system" to
a lot of people. Then again, the scenarios are examples too :)

Suggestions welcome, but spec doesn't really tell the right story. Of
course, we'll continue to support existing structures.


> -Ben

More information about the rspec-devel mailing list