On 2015-04-01 21:28, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
No, it's actually much simpler but less powerful. This is because the
language is not as dynamic as Ruby. But we'd like to keep things as
simple as possible.
Can't you implement that using macros?
But right now you get these things:
1. You can generate many tests in a simple way:
~~~
[1, 2, 3].each do |num|
it "works for #{num}" do
...
end
end
~~~
2. You get a summary of all the failures and the lines of the specs that
failed. Also, you get errors similar to RSpec for matchers. And you get
printed a command line for each failing spec so you can rerun it
separately. These are the most useful RSpec features for me.
3. You can get dots for each spec or the name of the specs (-format
option).
4. You can run a spec given its line number or a regular expression for
its name.
Eventually it will have more features, as the language evolves, but for
now this has proven to be very useful :-)
Another good thing about it being just a library is that others send
pull requests and patches, and this is easier to understand than some
internal logic built into the compiler (compiler code is always harder).
This sounds all great. But lowering groups and examples to classes and
methods takes it to the next level.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
