[rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation DSL

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Fri Jun 1 18:01:09 EDT 2007

On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about this?
> http://pastie.caboo.se/66977
> The strategy is to check if the string argument is :validations (so
> this would become reserved). If it is, then include ModelValidations.
> 'it' without the block returns an object that contains a should
> method. The block it opens is related to but different from the one
> that 'it' opens.
> given doesn't seem strictly necessary, since we know what's being
> described, but it reads well and is explicit.
> > I think that I still prefer dedicating the entire behavior to
> > validation of a particular field (that's what I do in my current specs
> > anyway, albeit with far more lines of code).
> I'm sure we won't be able to agree on this, but it seems like overkill
> to me. What if in this proposal there was an option for
> :validation_of_password, etc.?
> > I don't think it would be right to have the behavior method "it"
> > running double-duty (it is already used to create the examples).
> > Also, I don't really see much benefit of "it.should_validate" over
> > "it_should_validate".  But I do like the idea of the example method
> > "it" getting the results of the "given", and that should be easy (I
> > think).
> Yeah, what's described here might be too evil. In its defense, though,
> the new 1.0 syntax seems to emphasize subject.should predicate over
> subject.should_predicate, which is what I've tried to preserve.

Well now we're getting much simpler. Instead of a whole new structure,
why not just use a custom matcher?


> > --
> > Nick
> --
> -J. Method
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

More information about the rspec-users mailing list