rspec users - Nov 2007 - helper methods starting with should

Hi all,

As an experiment in playing nice with others, we''ve added the ability
in rspec''s trunk to do this:

class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup

  def should_do_stuff
    ...
  end

end

This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
entry point to rspec.

For others, however, it has created a problem: you can''t write helper
methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.

Quick show of hands, please:

+1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
using should_
-1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
be able to write helper methods that start with should_.

You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
respond:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797

Thanks for playing,
Cheers,
David

ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
heard. I''m just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than the
few that have commented on the ticket.

pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
option. I don''t love that because it makes rspec more complicated, but
it''s a possibility.

0

Keep it, but make it a configuration option with default-off.

Nathan Sutton
fowlduck at gmail.com
rspec edge revision 2894
rspec_on_rails edge revision 2894
rails edge revision 8146




On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:59 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As an experiment in playing nice with others, we''ve added the
ability
> in rspec''s trunk to do this:
>
> class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup
>
>  def should_do_stuff
>    ...
>  end
>
> end
>
> This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
> the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
> entry point to rspec.
>
> For others, however, it has created a problem: you can''t write
helper
> methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.
>
> Quick show of hands, please:
>
> +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
> using should_
> -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
> be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
>
> You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
> respond:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797
>
> Thanks for playing,
> Cheers,
> David
>
> ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
> majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
> people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
> heard. I''m just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than
the
> few that have commented on the ticket.
>
> pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
> option. I don''t love that because it makes rspec more complicated,
but
> it''s a possibility.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

0

Should be able to turn on or off.  don''t know if the first went
through.

Nathan Sutton
fowlduck at gmail.com
rspec edge revision 2894
rspec_on_rails edge revision 2894
rails edge revision 8146




On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:59 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As an experiment in playing nice with others, we''ve added the
ability
> in rspec''s trunk to do this:
>
> class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup
>
>  def should_do_stuff
>    ...
>  end
>
> end
>
> This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
> the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
> entry point to rspec.
>
> For others, however, it has created a problem: you can''t write
helper
> methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.
>
> Quick show of hands, please:
>
> +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
> using should_
> -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
> be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
>
> You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
> respond:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797
>
> Thanks for playing,
> Cheers,
> David
>
> ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
> majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
> people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
> heard. I''m just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than
the
> few that have commented on the ticket.
>
> pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
> option. I don''t love that because it makes rspec more complicated,
but
> it''s a possibility.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

+1 for keeping should prefix given the number of people who write helper
methods starting with "should" (at last count, one person) versus the
number
of people who find it useful starting test methods with the word
"should" in
xunit testing frameworks (nearly everyone I know). Obviously my world is
skewed because I am part of the problem, getting people to value
"should" in
the first place.

I think supporting should is more in the spirit of playing nice with others
(junit and test::unit folks) than not.

Cheers,
Dan

On Nov 18, 2007 3:59 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As an experiment in playing nice with others, we''ve added the
ability
> in rspec''s trunk to do this:
>
> class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup
>
>  def should_do_stuff
>    ...
>  end
>
> end
>
> This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
> the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
> entry point to rspec.
>
> For others, however, it has created a problem: you can''t write
helper
> methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.
>
> Quick show of hands, please:
>
> +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
> using should_
> -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
> be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
>
> You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
> respond:
>
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797
>
> Thanks for playing,
> Cheers,
> David
>
> ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
> majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
> people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
> heard. I''m just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than
the
> few that have commented on the ticket.
>
> pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
> option. I don''t love that because it makes rspec more complicated,
but
> it''s a possibility.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20071118/e5d3e1d8/attachment.html

On Nov 18, 2007 4:59 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As an experiment in playing nice with others, we''ve added the
ability
> in rspec''s trunk to do this:
>
> class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup
>
>   def should_do_stuff
>     ...
>   end
>
> end
>
> This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
> the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
> entry point to rspec.
>
> For others, however, it has created a problem: you can''t write
helper
> methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.
>
> Quick show of hands, please:
>
> +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
> using should_
> -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
> be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
-1. I don''t want to encourage a third style for examples (#test_* and
RSpec #it is enough). It doesn''t bring anything new to the table,
especially
when #it can be used inside TestCase classes.

Aslak
>
> You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
> respond:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797
>
> Thanks for playing,
> Cheers,
> David
>
> ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
> majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
> people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
> heard. I''m just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than
the
> few that have commented on the ticket.
>
> pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
> option. I don''t love that because it makes rspec more complicated,
but
> it''s a possibility.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Nov 18, 2007 10:29 AM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 4:59 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As an experiment in playing nice with others, we''ve added the
ability
> > in rspec''s trunk to do this:
> >
> > class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup
> >
> >   def should_do_stuff
> >     ...
> >   end
> >
> > end
> >
> > This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with
> > the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable
> > entry point to rspec.
> >
> > For others, however, it has created a problem: you can''t
write helper
> > methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples.
> >
> > Quick show of hands, please:
> >
> > +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples
> > using should_
> > -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should
> > be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
>
> -1. I don''t want to encourage a third style for examples (#test_*
and
> RSpec #it is enough). It doesn''t bring anything new to the table,
Your -1 noted, however I disagree with the rationale. I think it
*does* bring something new to the table. If you are one who prefers
classes/methods, you''d be stuck with this:

class SomeExamples << Test::Unit::TestCase::ExampleGroup
  def test_foo
    ...
  end
end

While this might be a useful transition from as T::U suite (just add
::ExampleGroup to the base class name), it feels like a transition
point, not and end. We want to encourage "should" over
"test".
> especially
> when #it can be used inside TestCase classes.
#it doesn''t really speak well inside a class definition:

class SomeExamples << Test::Unit::TestCase::ExampleGroup
  it "foo" do
    ...
  end
end

WDYT?

David

>
> Aslak
>
> >
> > You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you
> > respond:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797
> >
> > Thanks for playing,
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
> > ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a
> > majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to
> > people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be
> > heard. I''m just looking to take a pulse from a wider group
than the
> > few that have commented on the ticket.
> >
> > pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration
> > option. I don''t love that because it makes rspec more
complicated, but
> > it''s a possibility.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 19/11/2007, at 5:05 AM, Nathan Sutton wrote:
> 0
>
> Keep it, but make it a configuration option with default-off.
>
> Nathan Sutton
> fowlduck at gmail.com
> rspec edge revision 2894
> rspec_on_rails edge revision 2894
> rails edge revision 8146
>
>
I agree.  +1 configuration with default being current behaviour.

Cheers
Shane

-1
I, as a new rspec user, did not find the switch between test_ and it  
"blah" do to be even a small challenge compared to other things I had
to convert and learn.  I only feel like it would be one more thing to  
keep up with that would cause problems.  I can certainly see someone  
writing a helper method with should_ and saying "what the heck is  
going on" because they didn''t fully read all the documentation. 
It
was plenty easy in my conversion to say "oh ok, find and replace test_  
and put it "should" in place of that".  I would have certainly
been
frustrated to find a hidden "feature" causing problems that I
didn''t
understand.

Keeping in mind my original n00b perspective, I feel like if in my  
first impression I had the option of turning on a baby-step feature  
that I might have either, A - not known about it because I didn''t see  
it in my first tutorial, or, B - skipped it feeling that I could  
handle making that transition into the "accepted" way.

I can see how some people might find use for it, but I believe overall  
the complexity would cause more confusion than it would prevent.

There''s my 2 cents.

Glenn

On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Shane Mingins wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2007, at 5:05 AM, Nathan Sutton wrote:
>
>> 0
>>
>> Keep it, but make it a configuration option with default-off.
>>
>> Nathan Sutton
>> fowlduck at gmail.com
>> rspec edge revision 2894
>> rspec_on_rails edge revision 2894
>> rails edge revision 8146
>>
>>
>
> I agree.  +1 configuration with default being current behaviour.
>
> Cheers
> Shane
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

-1*
I upgraded a Rails project from rspec 0.9 to 1.1.2 -- and this change caused
me some pain.  Luckily, I figured it out and confirmed it here on the list
before things got too bad. :)
* That said, I have to admit that I''m not super-pleased about my helper
methods that start with should_ -- they probably should be rewritten in some
other way.  Perhaps as custom matchers.  So maybe I will abstain from this
vote after all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080129/25842037/attachment.html