[rspec-users] RSpec style and truthiness

Joseph Wilk joe at josephwilk.net
Fri Mar 20 05:56:51 EDT 2009

Stephen Eley wrote:
> 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?  .....
Please frame that and put it on a wall somewhere. Its Quite brilliant.

Joseph Wilk

> (...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!)

More information about the rspec-users mailing list