[rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention
pergesu at gmail.com
Mon Sep 3 10:45:04 EDT 2007
On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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)
> > >
> > > Can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here. Is it really
> > > silly? If so, why? Maybe you're on to something here.
> > It's not actually silly. In fact some time last year I made all my
> > specs end in .spec instead of .rb. The only potential problem is
> > integration with tools, which all know how to handle .rb files.
> > Though of course those can be configured.
> > I don't have a personal preference really. If others feel that naming
> > them .spec better conveys the idea of "executable specs that happen to
> > be implemented in Ruby" then cool. It's silly, to me, in the sense
> > that I don't think it warrants much thought.
> > otoh maybe I need to be more forward-thinking in that regard. RSpec
> > works on JRuby, and developers could conceivably use RSpec to drive
> > their Java-only code. RSpec obviously has the makings of a general
> > specification library and I wouldn't be surprised if bindings pop up
> > for other languages now that the core is stable.
> > So I guess I just talked myself into .spec :)
> When I first got involved w/ rspec we batted this idea around. We
> landed on the convention of "_spec.rb" and, to be honest, I don't
> remember why. I vaguely recall there being some problem with .spec.
> Perhaps it was just that it required teaching editors like TextMate to
> treat these files as Ruby files. I don't remember for sure.
> Thinking about this a bit more, I don't think that this is worthy of
> changing right now. I imagine that it would cause trouble for anybody
> who's got custom rake tasks, custom actions in IDEs, etc.
Agreed. It could turn out to just be a hassle for anyone new coming
to RSpec. We don't want that.
> As for ppl
> using rspec to drive behaviour on other platforms, it's still got to
> be interpreted as Ruby first - at least that's how the world of JRuby
> is now. So I don't think dropping the .rb buys us expansion into other
YAGNI, I guess.
> But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
> more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
Can't you tell just how strong my feelings are on this? :)
More information about the rspec-users