[rspec-users] Spec Naming (was: Rspec Brown Bag)

Nick Sieger nicksieger at gmail.com
Tue Nov 21 11:51:20 EST 2006

On 11/21/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> When you look at the specs what you propose makes sense, however when
> you read the output I think using "should" in the names helps to
> convey the "spec-ness" of the specs. To me.

This got me thinking about RFC-2119 recommended language for requirement
levels [1].  This would obviously be a big change in direction for RSpec,
but what if:

object.must == value # => required; produces error
object.should == value # => recommended; produces warning
object.may == value # => informational message that an optional feature is
not provided

Of course, the utility of this is questionable for RSpec.  It might be
interesting for a tool (not RSpec, but something like it) that's essentially
a portable specification language that can be applied to more than one
implementation.  But now we're not really talking about BDD, so forgive me
for straying OT.


[1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20061121/7c601bf4/attachment.html 

More information about the rspec-users mailing list