[rspec-users] RSpec style and truthiness

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 10:45:47 EDT 2009

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Wilk <joe at josephwilk.net> wrote:
> 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.

Nay frame, nor wall, yet viewable by all:

> --
> Joseph Wilk
> http://blog.josephwilk.net
>> (...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!)
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

More information about the rspec-users mailing list