Nick Hoffman wrote in post #973978: > BTW, it's best not to include the word "should" in your spec > descriptions. > it 'validates the presence of "text"' do > is better because it's more descriptive.
I don't agree. Since RSpec's syntax uses "should" as a technical term, I believe it should be in every spec description: it "should set the value to 2" do value.should == 2 end > > The word "should" is soft; it doesn't mean "fail if this isn't true", > which > is what we're trying to convey. "Should" as an RSpec technical term isn't soft at all. It's "this *should* be true. If it is not, we have a problem." Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org mar...@marnen.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
