[rspec-users] it "should [action] ..." vs it with an active voice

Pat Maddox pergesu at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 23:47:58 EST 2007


On Nov 12, 2007 7:12 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 9:03 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/12/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 12, 2007 8:09 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The difference is that the story is an authoritative
> > > > spec of how the system should behave, and the description has no
> > > > authority at all.
> > >
> > > I don't have that sense at all. Where do you get that from?
> >
> > >From the belief that the customer is the ultimate authority on what it
> > means for the system to behave acceptably, and the fact that stories
> > are customer-facing and specs are developer-facing.
>
> I totally agree that the customer is the authority - however, the
> customer has just as much right to change her mind about a story as I
> do about a spec! So why should stories be any more locked down than
> specs?

Stories represent a bridge between the customer's and the developer's
minds, a snapshot of the shared understanding at a given point in
time.  They do not obviate the need for customer-developer
communication.  A customer should be able to change her stories as
much as she wants, but all but the very simplest changes ought to spur
a discussion and reevaluation of assumptions.

Pat


More information about the rspec-users mailing list