New style like "fun spec", but with "should"

[helmbold]

I've pretty good experience writing unit test methods starting with should. This simple words leads to much better names compared to test. Therefore I suggest, to support another style like fun spec, but using the word should. Example:

should("remove the last element from stack") {
  val stack = ListStack<String>()
  stack.push("hello")
  stack.push("world")
  stack.size() shouldBe 2

  val element = stack.pop() 

  element shouldBe "world"
  stack.size() shouldBe 1
}

Compared to the existing style with test it is even more concise, since it is already known what object is tested in a certain unit test class.

should("remove the last element from stack")
test("ListStack.pop should remove the last element from stack")

[sksamuel]

I like it, what do you suggest this *Spec should be called

On 15 April 2016 at 07:32, Christian Helmbold notifications@github.com
wrote:

I've pretty good experience writing unit test methods starting with should.
This simple words leads to much better names compared to test. Therefore
I suggest, to support another style like fun spec, but using the word
should. Example:

should("remove the last element from stack") {
val stack = ListStack()
stack.push("hello")
stack.push("world")
stack.size() shouldBe 2

val element = stack.pop()

element shouldBe "world"
stack.size() shouldBe 1
}

Compared to the existing style with test it is even more concise, since
it is already known what object is tested in a certain unit test class.

should("remove the last element from stack")
test("ListStack.pop should remove the last element from stack")

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6

[helmbold]

It is hard to find a good name. On the other hand, if I read "fun spec", I have no idea, how the code could look like. So maybe it is enough if the name is useful for developers already knowing the different styles.

Here are my suggestions:

• should spec
• should fun spec
• fun should spec
• should simple spec
• simple should spec

I prefer "should spec" since it describes pretty good what is typical for this style: the word "should". On the other hand "should" is used by the other styles, too. Maybe "should fun spec" is a bit more descriptive. Since I find this kind of spec most simple, the word "simple" could be used, but then again "fun spec" wouldn't be appropriate, because it is as simple as my suggested style.

[sksamuel]

I think ShouldSpec is fine.
On 15 Apr 2016 15:27, "Christian Helmbold" notifications@github.com wrote:

It is hard to find a good name. On the other hand, if I read "fun spec", I
have no idea, how the code could look like. So maybe it is enough if the
name is useful for developers already knowing the different styles.

Here are my suggestions:

• should spec
• should fun spec
• fun should spec
• should simple spec
• simple should spec

I prefer "should spec" since it describes pretty good what is typical for
this style: the word "should". Whether it is a variant of "fun spec" is not
that important. Since I find this kind of spec most simple, the word
"simple" could be used.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)

[helmbold]

Fine! I'm looking forward to the new style. Thanks for your effort.

[sksamuel]

This changes allows

should("some test") { }

and

"some text" {
   should("some test") { }
}

[sksamuel]

@helmbold did you try this out of interest?

[helmbold]

... sorry, not yet. My job is still Java dominated ... However I'm planning to use it in the near future.

[sksamuel]

booo to java :)