[rspec-users] helper methods starting with should

Dan North tastapod at gmail.com
Sun Nov 18 11:29:24 EST 2007

+1 for keeping should prefix given the number of people who write helper
methods starting with "should" (at last count, one person) versus the number
of people who find it useful starting test methods with the word "should" in
xunit testing frameworks (nearly everyone I know). Obviously my world is
skewed because I am part of the problem, getting people to value "should" in
the first place.

I think supporting should is more in the spirit of playing nice with others
(junit and test::unit folks) than not.


On Nov 18, 2007 3:59 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> As an experiment in playing nice with others, we've added the ability
> in rspec's trunk to do this:
> class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup
>  def should_do_stuff
>    ...
>  end
> end
> This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
> the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
> entry point to rspec.
> For others, however, it has created a problem: you can't write helper
> methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.
> Quick show of hands, please:
> +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
> using should_
> -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
> be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
> You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
> respond:
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797
> Thanks for playing,
> Cheers,
> David
> ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
> majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
> people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
> heard. I'm just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than the
> few that have commented on the ticket.
> pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
> option. I don't love that because it makes rspec more complicated, but
> it's a possibility.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20071118/e5d3e1d8/attachment.html 

More information about the rspec-users mailing list