[rspec-users] story vs feature (was Documentation for Plain-Text Stories)

[Matt Wynne]

On 29 Aug 2008, at 19:37, Dan North wrote:

> 2008/8/24 David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
> [...]
> Sadly, "spec" has just as much baggage, if not more, as "test" does.
> These days we're calling these things "code examples," (tongue
> pressing into cheek) so maybe we should change the name to
> rcodeexample?
>
> Or rbehave?
>
> The rbehave.org domain is available (I registered it some time  
> ago), and rspec has naturally evolved from its original goal of  
> code-level specs to become a full-stack behaviour description  
> framework.

or RubyDD

or RuBehave

:)

I actually really like calling them specs rather than tests, at a  
unit-testing level. It makes a real difference to me that I'm  
expressing a *specification* for the class I'm about to code - it  
makes it much more natural to do it before you write the  
implementation when it's a spec rather than a test.

cheers,
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080830/1887473a/attachment.html>