[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'?

-Ben


More information about the rspec-users mailing list