Glad You're Ready. Let's Get Started!

Let us know how we can contact you.

Thank you!

We'll respond shortly.

Being Brave is fun.

You know how tech is. If you don’t stop and look around every, oh, hour or so, a brand new, very interesting technology has surfaced.

If that is not bad enough, old technologies get reinvigorated, like people taking up Vi, Lisp, NeXt… :)

So if you’re like me, are ‘time poor’ and want to get something valuable out of your precious personal-project time, then be brave.

Today I started on a small gem, to help people track what’s taking a lot of time in their Rails boot process. I needed to test. I use RSpec at work, yet I fell back to my default, minitest, because it comes for free with Ruby and is pretty straight forward for small work. I noticed, for the first time, that minitest has a BDD style syntax. Feeling brave, I used it.

I’m glad I did.

It will confuse me when I switch context back to work, then back to the gem. Nevertheless, I enjoyed using something so simple but slightly nicer to type, read and comprehend than:

def test_it_wants_to_have_lots_of_underscores

You would think that using a bunch of differently named expectations would be annoying. It wasn’t. It stretched my mind in a short amount of time, which is more satisfying than the string of passing tests in my little personal-project.

  1. Robbie Clutton says:

    Got some examples you can share?

    • Rasheed Abdul-Aziz says:

      Unfortunately no. I ran aground with Minitest and switched to RSpec. Unfortunately I don’t immediately recall why. Certainly one take away, Minitest lacked the expressiveness that all the RSpec Matchers provide. I would say, as a whole, I prefer RSpec.

      I subsequently started another gem, and part of my scaffolding was RSpec, from the outset.

Post a Comment

Your Information (Name required. Email address will not be displayed with comment.)

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Share This