[rspec-devel] directory structure/naming

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 21:30:16 EDT 2008


On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM, linojon <linojon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ben Mabey 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.  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?
>>
>> -Ben
>
> features is to scenarios
> as
> specs is to examples

or example_groups is to examples ;)

> therefore the directories:
>
> behaviour
>        features
>        specs
>
> besides, i like less typing


How about this:

behaviour
  code
  features

That's one less char for you :)

> :)


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list