[rspec-devel] directory structure/naming

Ben Mabey ben at benmabey.com
Mon Sep 22 22:00:21 EDT 2008


David Chelimsky wrote:
> 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?
>
>   
How about object-examples?  It seems like the example framework is more
geared toward, and is used more, on the object level so maybe that
naming would reinforce that.  That could be a good or bad thing... Just
thought I would throw that out there.

-Ben


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list