[rspec-users] more different predicates (not only should)?
mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Fri Aug 3 06:49:49 EDT 2007
On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Philipp Engel wrote:
> I am using rspec in a project and would like to know if you have
> thought about adding a feature.
> RSpec as I know it currently only knows about the predicate 'should'.
> What I have in mind would look something like this:
> it :should "have a valid name"
> now should is not part of the spec text, but a symbol. Then you
> could think of things like that:
> it :must "have a valid name"
> it :shall "have a valid name"
> so you can define some criticality, and if specs fail, you know
> what has a higher priority. Also, there could be a predicate
What would be the different levels of priority, and how would they be
As far as I've been doing it, BDD usually encourages example
implementing the spec => refactoring, and then repeating the process
your feature set is where you want it to be.
Usually the only time a bunch of specs will fail is when you are
doing some major
refactoring, and so usually I look to refactor in a different way.
From what I understand, there was once a time (long ago, something
like pre v. 0.1)
when these three names were all being considered as equals. Should
> that allows you to write down spec for future versions that do not
> have to work and are not shown when running the test in normal mode
> it :in_future_version_must "have a valid name"
> or something like that.
yep. That's the unimplemented spec. Don't provide a block, and the
will let you know that the feature hasn't been implemented. So your
it "should have a valid name"
New on trunk is also the pending() method, which allows you to write the
desired behaviour without it being implemented. It considers the
an unimplemented spec.
More information about the rspec-users