On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:41:54 PM UTC-5, Ruby-Forum.com User wrote: > > 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." > I believe David Chelimsky (the original/primary author of RSpec) specifically said that spec descriptions should not begin with "should". I tried to find where he wrote that, but wasn't able to. However, take a look at David's examples:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/11/07/specifying-mixins-with-shared-example-groups-in-rspec-2/ http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/06/14/filtering-examples-in-rspec-2/ http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/09/15/let-it-be-less/ None of those posts have "should" in a spec description. The latest example on David's blog that uses "should" in a spec description is from 2008: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2008/07/01/new-controller-examples/ However, this convo should be moved to the RSpec mailing list. -- 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.
