rspec users - Jun 2007 - Custom report outputting text, expected and actual on succes?

I would like to output the following information when running a spec
(_also_ on success):

- the description text
- the expected value
- the actual value

After looking through the documentation I thought custom formatters
might be the way to go, but unfortunately it does not look like all
variables are accessible from there?

I need this for an academic report where all testing needs to be
documented with expected and actual values. This will probably be one
of the only times I need this, so I am prepared for a quick and dirty
hack to get it working.

Before diving deeper into the code I would like to hear if anyone can
think of a clever solution? I thought of creating custom matchers that
outputs the information but this seems dumb?

Any ideas?

I''m looking through my specs and they work great, but they
don''t read
as English. I''m wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are  
some examples:

describe Agent do
   it ''should be possible to create one'' do
   end
end

This reads as "Agent should be possible to create one". Any  
suggestions how the describe/it might better be worded?

Thx

> I''m looking through my specs and they work great, but they
don''t read
> as English. I''m wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are
> some examples:
> 
> describe Agent do
>    it ''should be possible to create one'' do
>    end
> end
Does

describe Agent do
   it ''should be createable'' do
	# stuff
   end
end

work for you?

For that simple case, yes. But how about the case where I specify:

Agent "should not be possible for the same user to rate the same  
agent twice with same kind of transaction"

The English grammar gets a bit twisty. Perhaps:

Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice  
with the same kind of transaction"

Thoughts?


On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:
>> I''m looking through my specs and they work great, but they
don''t read
>> as English. I''m wondering how others are phrasing these. Here
are
>> some examples:
>>
>> describe Agent do
>>    it ''should be possible to create one'' do
>>    end
>> end
>
> Does
>
> describe Agent do
>    it ''should be createable'' do
> 	# stuff
>    end
> end
>
> work for you?
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

On 7/5/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote:
> For that simple case, yes. But how about the case where I specify:
>
> Agent "should not be possible for the same user to rate the same
> agent twice with same kind of transaction"
>
> The English grammar gets a bit twisty. Perhaps:
>
> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice
> with the same kind of transaction"
>
> Thoughts?
How would you phrase all this with context/specify? Or, a bit further
off target, TestCase/test_method?
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:
>
> >> I''m looking through my specs and they work great, but
they don''t read
> >> as English. I''m wondering how others are phrasing these.
Here are
> >> some examples:
> >>
> >> describe Agent do
> >>    it ''should be possible to create one'' do
> >>    end
> >> end
> >
> > Does
> >
> > describe Agent do
> >    it ''should be createable'' do
> >       # stuff
> >    end
> > end
> >
> > work for you?
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice
>> with the same kind of transaction"
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> How would you phrase all this with context/specify? Or, a bit further
> off target, TestCase/test_method?
>
I wouldn''t phrase it differently with context/specify and with  
TestCase/test_method, I''d probably care less because I
wouldn''t have
been trained to create beautiful, self-documenting example  
descriptions :)

I''m just thinking there must be a nicer way to express what I mean.

Does this work?

describe Agent, "rated by a user with the same kind of transaction" do
   it ''should not be rated twice'' do
     # stuff
   end
end

s.ross wrote:
> For that simple case, yes. But how about the case where I specify:
> 
> Agent "should not be possible for the same user to rate the same  
> agent twice with same kind of transaction"
> 
> The English grammar gets a bit twisty. Perhaps:
> 
> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice  
> with the same kind of transaction"
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:
> 
>>> I''m looking through my specs and they work great, but they
don''t read
>>> as English. I''m wondering how others are phrasing these.
Here are
>>> some examples:
>>>
>>> describe Agent do
>>>    it ''should be possible to create one'' do
>>>    end
>>> end
>> Does
>>
>> describe Agent do
>>    it ''should be createable'' do
>> 	# stuff
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> work for you?
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

I have no idea what the business logic is, but I guess I see a few  
words there which could be more concise.

"should not allow" could become "disallows".  Not much
shorter, but I
don''t think it''s written anywhere that everything must to
start with
"should"?

"the same user to rate the same agent twice" could become
"duplicate
ratings"

So maybe:
Agent disallows duplicate ratings of the same transaction type

Again I''m just taking a wild shot in the dark about your business  
logic from that description.  I don''t mention "user" or
"agent" in
mine.  But we''re already describing Agent, and can anything but a  
User rate an agent?  If only a User can, do you even need to specify  
that it''s a User who is doing the rating?

I do find exercises like this where you have to try and describe your  
problem domain succinctly helps to understand it, and to be able to  
talk to another developer or your customer intelligently about it.

Don

On Jul 5, 2007, at 3:06 PM, s.ross wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>>> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent
twice
>>> with the same kind of transaction"
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> How would you phrase all this with context/specify? Or, a bit further
>> off target, TestCase/test_method?
>>
>
> I wouldn''t phrase it differently with context/specify and with
> TestCase/test_method, I''d probably care less because I
wouldn''t have
> been trained to create beautiful, self-documenting example
> descriptions :)
>
> I''m just thinking there must be a nicer way to express what I
mean.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users