Should is the new Must?

[Trans]

Why did 'should' become the going nomenclature of BDD framworks?

'Should' connotes 'ought', as if something ought to do xyz, but
doesn't necessarily have to. I don't know about you, but I don't write
my tests/specs that way!

'Must' is the word that denotes what our tests/specs do.

my_method.must.do_the_right_thing

not

my_method.should.do_the_right_thing

'Must' is a shorter word too. So why didn't it become the word of
choice here?

I think long dead Grammar teachers are rolling in their graves.


-7. Muse.

 

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

Why did 'should' become the going nomenclature of BDD framworks?

'Should' connotes 'ought', as if something ought to do xyz, but
doesn't necessarily have to. I don't know about you, but I don't write
my tests/specs that way!

'Must' is the word that denotes what our tests/specs do.

I agree. I've suggested the classic requirement-docs' "shall" in the
past too, but "must" has an immediacy more appropriate to BDD.

- Charlie

 

[Stephen Celis]

Hi,

Why did 'should' become the going nomenclature of BDD framworks?

'Should' connotes 'ought', as if something ought to do xyz, but
doesn't necessarily have to. I don't know about you, but I don't write
my tests/specs that way!

'Must' is the word that denotes what our tests/specs do.

my_method.must.do_the_right_thing

not

my_method.should.do_the_right_thing

'Must' is a shorter word too. So why didn't it become the word of
choice here?

Perhaps because even we programmers are fallible, and it softens the
blow when specs fail. Ah! "my_method" is acting up again!

Stephen

 

[Einar Magnús Boson]

But you are setting up an expectation, right?

my_method.must.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't? but it must!

my_method.should.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't, but it should!

For me the second example feels more natural in a environment where
you expect tests to fail at first, maybe this is different in BDD than
in TDD, I don't know enough about BDD. Especially when you use tests
to design interfaces the "should" thinking comes more natural: You
don't have a feature yet but you write down what it should do, then
you implement it.

I agree. I've suggested the classic requirement-docs' "shall" in the
past too, but "must" has an immediacy more appropriate to BDD.

- Charlie

einarmagnus

 

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

Perhaps because even we programmers are fallible, and it softens the
blow when specs fail. Ah! "my_method" is acting up again!

How about something a bit more threatening...

my_method.better == 42

Perhaps you define an or_else {} along with the spec that cuts off the
programmer's little finger?

- Charlie

 

[Tobias Crawley]

But you are setting up an expectation, right?

my_method.must.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't? but it must!

my_method.should.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't, but it should!

For me the second example feels more natural in a environment where =20=

you expect tests to fail at first, maybe this is different in BDD =20
than in TDD, I don't know enough about BDD. Especially when you use =20=

tests to design interfaces the "should" thinking comes more natural: =20=

You don't have a feature yet but you write down what it should do, =20
then you implement it.

Announcing yet another test framework: Musty!

Its perfect for dusting off that old, untested code and bringing it =20
into the modern era! Since its already in production, it MUST be doing =20=

the right thing already, right?

-Tobias=

 

[Paul Brannan]

How about something a bit more threatening...

my_method.better == 42

well.daggum do
my_cotton_pickin_variable.oughta == 13
end

 

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

well.daggum do
my_cotton_pickin_variable.oughta == 13
end

Maybe we could get really fuzzy with it...

my_method.might == 3

I've been on a few projects where that would be a valid spec.

- Charlie

 

[Daniel Berger]

Why did 'should' become the going nomenclature of BDD framworks?

Dunno. Don't care. I don't feel the need for DSL-y notation in my
tests.

assert_rocks(Test::Unit) # Test::Unit 2 anyway

Regards,

Dan

 

[ara.t.howard]

Dunno. Don't care. I don't feel the need for DSL-y notation in my
tests.

assert_rocks(Test::Unit) # Test::Unit 2 anyway

Regards,

Dan

i'm with you dan - the fact that 'should' somehow produces better code
that 'assert' is plain crazy. so is changing a T(DD) to a B.


a @ http://codeforpeople.com/

 

[ara.t.howard]

I agree. I've suggested the classic requirement-docs' "shall" in the
past too, but "must" has an immediacy more appropriate to BDD.

should makes sense from a 'write the tests first' perspective. still
don't like it - but just saying... ;-)

a @ http://codeforpeople.com/

 

[Joshua Ballanco]

Thanks for the coffee all over my desk via my nose!

Im_gonna_make_you_an_offer_you_cant_refuse do
my_method.better know_when_to_shut_up
or_else
sleep_with_the_fishes
end

def sleep_with_the_fishes
puts "Why do you hurt me?"
end

- Josh

 

[Daniel Berger]

i'm with you dan - the fact that 'should' somehow produces better code = =A0
that 'assert' is plain crazy. =A0so is changing a T(DD) to a B.

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.

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.

Regards,

Dan

 

[ara.t.howard]

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) ;-)

sorry - couldn't resist.

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.

a @ http://codeforpeople.com/

 

[Daniel Berger]

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?

indeedy. and change T to B while you're at it. much more efficient and
speedy.

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

 

[Mikel Lindsaar]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

well.daggum do
my_cotton_pickin_variable.oughta == 13
end

That thar last spec went n' failed with
my_cotton_pickin_variable.oughta == 13but the son of a gun came back with 3

 

[Avdi Grimm]

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?

It's called FIT[1], or, in the Ruby world, Cucumber[2] (successor to
the RSpec Story Runner).

[1] http://fit.c2.com/
[2] http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/wikis

 

[Avdi Grimm]

Why did 'should' become the going nomenclature of BDD framworks?

Because that's the word PMs and clients typically use when they are
describing a system, and BDD attempts to eliminate vocabulary
differences between the client and the programmer.

True, they sometimes say "must", when they really want to emphasize
something. But for the most part they say things like "after the user
logs in they should be shown a list of overdue frobbits, if there are
any".

 

[Daniel Berger]

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?

It's called FIT[1], or, in the Ruby world, Cucumber[2] (successor to
the RSpec Story Runner).

[1]http://fit.c2.com/
[2]http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/wikis

Aha, thanks! I saw Brandon Keeper's talk[1] on Cucumber at the Great
Lakes Ruby Bash, so I should have remembered that.

Regards,

Dan

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/bkeepers/behavior-driven-development-with-cuc=
umber-presentation

 

[David Chelimsky]

But you are setting up an expectation, right?

my_method.must.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't? but it must!

my_method.should.do_the_right_thing.
it didn't, but it should!

For me the second example feels more natural in a environment where you
expect tests to fail at first, maybe this is different in BDD than in TDD= , I
don't know enough about BDD. Especially when you use tests to design
interfaces the "should" thinking comes more natural: You don't have a
feature yet but you write down what it should do, then you implement it.

This is definitely part of the motivation behind "should."

Keep in mind that BDD started off as an attempt to help TDD newbies to
understand TDD as a design/documentation practice. The word "should"
was chosen for a few reasons.

First, it was to get people who were writing test names like test_pop
to write test names like
test_pop_should_return_the_object_at_the_top_of_the_stack instead.
From this perspective, any such word (should, must, aughta, etc) would
do just fine.

The other motivation for should was in part what Einar suggests here.

If you're writing the test first, then the code doesn't do what it
should yet. So should makes sense in that moment (before the test
passes) to say "should."

Later, when a previously passing test fails, when it says "should'
then you get to ask "should it?" That failure *might* be because a
code change introduced a bug, or it could be that a new requirement
nullifies or somehow challenges a previous requirement.

FWIW,
David