rspec looks like
"blah".length.should == 4
I want js specs to look almost the same, in terms of compactness.
this is my goal for matching
"blah".length.should("==",4)
The main js BDD frameworks out there right now are more verbose than I like, so I started working on my own.
I am borrowing ideas from jsspec and Screw.Unit in places. But, I want to write the thing from roughly the ground up.
js---
***>> "blah".length.should("==",4) <<***
"blah".length.should(); equal(4)
"blah".length.should(equal,4)
"blah".length.should({equal:4})
"blah".length.should({'==':4})
m("blah".length).should("==",4)
One problem I ran into immediately was whether to break for in loops or not, by adding functions to Object.prototype.
It looks like most choose not to. If you don't, then you are limited to building matchers off of things like this
wrapper("thing to test".length).should("matcher","expected value")
because you can't use the object directly.
Screw.Unit
expect(thinggummy()).to(equal, expected_value);
jsspec
value_of(1 + 2).should_be(3);
After using rspec for a while, I found these abit frustrating--too much line noise. I use Prototype on my projects which,
since it adds things to Objects that might not be expected when using for in loops, I say to heck with them.
But, you can turn that off if you like.
Or, atleast that is the plan.
Spec.use_wrapper()
then instead of
(1+1).should("==",2)
you should use
j(1+1).should("==",2)
(if j() doesn't work for you for some reason, you can change the name by passing a string to use_wrapper)
'describe' blocks are just javascript objects, and they stack.
If you want, you can define something like this
Spec('thing to test',{...})
or just Spec({...})
Spec({
'test wrapped objects':{}
})
If I want it to act like rspec, the matchers and expectations need to be fatter.