From: Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Date: 2008-11-19T11:21:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Should is the new Must?

ara.t.howard wrote:
> 
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
> 
>> I think Shoulda can create a printable, formatable spec from the tests
>> themselves that PM's can easily read. Or is that RSpec? Or do either
>> of them have that feature? I thought one of them did.
>>
> 
> you mean as opposed to reading the *actual* spec right?  (aka the code)  
> ;-)

Who are these PM's who can read code? ;)

> sorry - couldn't resist.

No problem. ;)

Hm, random idea here...if specs were formalized somehow...then we could 
autogenerate a test spec from the written spec and vice-versa. A bridge between 
PM's and programmers. Something like UML, but for tests...

I dunno...just a thought. Maybe it already exists?

>> That's about the only practical advantage I can see. And, I think
>> that's something that could be integrated into Test::Unit if we really
>> wanted it.
> 
> indeedy.  and change T to B while you're at it.  much more efficient and 
> speedy.

:-P

Speaking of efficiency and speed I highly recommend people upgrade to Test::Unit 
2.x. The startup and shutdown methods alone are worth it, as they could save 
many, many calls that you would otherwise shove in a setup method.

Regards,

Dan