the more I use MiniTest the less I like it
-
-
@bascule is there something you don’t like about MiniTest besides its spec interface? -
@rbates I really do like how RSpec makes everything look Englishey. Not really a fan of MiniSpec's shared examples either -
-
@SharpsawDotOrg@rbates I'd rather have the expressitivity via regular Ruby instead of looking up custom syntax :< -
@bascule@SharpsawDotOrg@rbates What custom syntax? With RSpec, the semantics are so twisted. ↬ Quick, no docs, define a matcher. -
@SharpsawDotOrg@rbates x.should be < 10 versus x.must_be :<, 10 -
-
@SharpsawDotOrg@rbates it lets me use standard Ruby syntax to build my assertion, instead of a special syntax like x.must_be(symbol, num)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@bascule however I feel both RSpec and Bacon try to get too close to English syntax. I want each method call to mean something. -
New conversation -
-
-
@bascule I love the idea of a single “should” method that matchers go through. RSpec and Bacon are close to this.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@bascule that is bad. It’s like there are too many methods added to Object, but yet not enough. It shouldn’t be where matchers are added.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.