[rspec-devel] directory structure/naming

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 21:47:22 EDT 2008

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM, 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
>> therefore the directories:
>> behaviour
>>        features
>>        specs
>> besides, i like less typing
>> :)
> Have we learned nothing from prioritizing the number of characters
> over a meaningful name? :)
> Any good shell will tab auto-complete anyways, and in an actual IDE
> you almost never have actually type in the name of the directory
> unless you're creating it.
> I like:
> behaviour
>   examples
>   features
> I think "code" communicates poorly. I like "code-examples", but I
> think if we drop "code" the same intent is expressed. I know that like
> "specs" whatever becomes convention will be cemented in everyone's
> heads very shortly. But while we're trying to get the words right,
> let's try to get the words right.

Agreed on the goal. I think the problem we have to solve is to come up
with words that reveal the differences between examples of features
and examples of code.

The problem I have with 'examples' by itself is that scenarios are
examples too, just at a higher level.

Also, examples appear in many, many libraries, and in most cases ... I
don't think that word means what you think it means ... at least not
in our context.

The reason I like 'features' and 'code' is that what we've got are
examples of features and code ;)

I'm not sold on the 'code' idea, but so far it speaks better to me
than any other.

More thoughts?

More information about the rspec-devel mailing list