[rspec-users] RSpec style and truthiness

Stephen Eley sfeley at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 23:20:07 EDT 2009

2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com>:
> Even 'should be' is a bit grating.  I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers
> like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have
> to say.

should be || should_not be: that is the expectation:
Whether 'tis nobler in the parser to interpret
The outputs and side effects of outrageous duck typing,
Or to inherit against a sea of matchers
And by declaration extend them?  To fail: to raise;
No more; and by a raise to say we throw
The exception and the thousand natural returns
The code is heir to, 'tis a specification
Devoutly to be wished.  To fail: to raise;
To raise, perchance to rescue: ay, there's the rub,
For in that state of exception what tests may fail
When we have injected in this matcher code
Must give us pause: there's the RSpec
That makes calamity of such long backtraces;
For who would bear the Flogs and Heckles,
The oppressor's Reek, the proud man's Cucumber,
The pangs of despised Rcov, the spec_server's Drb,
The insolence of Autotest and the spurns
That patient merit of the occasional Rakes,
When he himself might his validation make
With a bare assertion?  .....

(...And so forth.  All of which is to say, before my Muse molested me,
that I rather _like_ the sparse "should be" and "should_not be" specs.
 Simple is good, and there's a poetry about them.  Keep 'em!)

Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine

More information about the rspec-users mailing list