[rspec-users] Dealing with dependent data

Ben Mabey ben at benmabey.com
Thu Jun 26 21:52:03 EDT 2008

Scott Taylor wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Bart Zonneveld wrote:
>> On 26-jun-2008, at 15:48, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
>>>> http://www.lindsaar.net/2008/6/24/tip-24-being-clever-in-specs-is-for-dummies 
>>> That post is fantastic. Thanks!
>> Couldn't agree more with that post... For instance, 
>> restful_authentication now comes with specs, but, ehrm... See for 
>> yourself: http://pastie.org/222670
> haha.  I have no idea what's going on there.

This is slightly OT.. but looking at those specs brings up one of my 
other pet peeves, and that is excluding the "should" from the specs.  I 
have seen a lot of projects and developers that I respect highly not use 
the word "should" in there specs.  I have accepted it as just one of 
those things that people disagree on, but I think there is a lot of 
value of having the "should".  For one it makes removing the example 
easier when it becomes incorrect (meaning, the expected behaviour has 
changed.)  I guess I just see the "should" as being a bigger part of BDD 
than some people.

Am I the only one who thinks this or what are the arguments for not 
using 'should'?


More information about the rspec-users mailing list