[rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

Pat Maddox pergesu at gmail.com
Mon Sep 3 10:11:55 EDT 2007


On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end
> > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"?  They are all inside the spec
> > folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit?
>
> For me, personally, if I'm in TextMate and I see a row of tabs that say:
>
> thing.rb|thing_controller.rb|thing_controller.rb|thing.rb
>
> I'm going to be confused by that. It also makes searching for the file
> that much more complicated because you have to start looking for the
> folder when you search for thing.rb instead of just looking for the
> filename.
>
> Thoughts about that?

>From a practical standpoint, _spec is there because it allows me to
distinguish files at a glance.

>From a philosophical standpoint, .rb is there because I'm writing
specifications that just happen to be implemented in Ruby.  (no I
would not suggest in a million years that the files be changed to
.spec.  That's silly)

Pat


More information about the rspec-users mailing list