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

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 00:00:58 EST 2007


On Nov 12, 2007 10:47 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

We are in violent agreement!

But, as irony would have it, this agreement seems to lead us to
different conclusions. My thinking is that "should" actually works
well in stories for all the same reasons it works well in specs. You
seem to take that in a different direction, no?


More information about the rspec-users mailing list