I'd like to start gathering information/debating on the advantages/disadvantages of using it "should ..." vs other techniques.
Dan North explained why we should use should: http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd/ I used to use it "should ..." for the projects I was on, until I was challenged by a fellow developer who started using it with an active voice. For example instead of: it "should go to the park" An active voice would be: it "goes to the park" After a few days of reluctance (or stubbornly hanging on to the rspec "convention"), I eventually adopted and grown to love using the active voice. Here are the main reasons that I prefer an active voice because: * using it "should ..." over and over renders should meaningless (I have grown this barely conscience aversion to the word 'should') * less less words are needed * the differentiating information of the 'it' statement is in the front, rather than hidden behind should (space to the left is at a premium) * it describes what the software will do and what it does (both from the Test Driven Design and Regression verification lifecycles of the test) * you still have a good "sentence template" that "should" provides (you have to make a coherent sentence) So here it my initial stab. Lets discuss :) Thanks, Brian _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
