antonmi/espec

More readable syntax?

Open

#300 opened on Aug 14, 2020

View on GitHub
 (7 comments) (0 reactions) (0 assignees)Elixir (61 forks)batch import
enhancementhelp wanted

Repository metrics

Stars
 (775 stars)
PR merge metrics
 (No merged PRs in 30d)

Description

I don't understand why you chose to use this for your syntax:

expect actual |> to(eq expected)

rather than this:

expect(actual).to.eq.(expected)

The second seems far more readable to me. Like, obviously the pipe operator is a core part of Elixir to the point that everyone programming in Elixir is going to understand it, but simple English is still more readable, and that goes doubly so when the more English syntax ends up being almost exactly the same as Ruby and close to the same as JavaScript, and triply so when the basic point of this library is to make more readable tests than ExUnit, in a style more like RSpec.

Contributor guide

Research direction
Investigate how to implement an alternative expect syntax using Elixir macros, potentially mirroring RSpec/JavaScript style, and assess impact on existing codebase.
Tech stack
elixir
Domain
testingdeveloper experience
Issue type
Feature
DifficultyEstimated implementation difficulty for a new contributor, from 1 for very small changes to 5 for expert-level work.
2
Estimated timeA rough time range for an experienced contributor to investigate, implement, test, and prepare a pull request.
Under 1 hour
Activity statusHow available the issue appears right now: fresh, active, stale, blocked, or waiting on maintainer input.
Active
ClarityHow clearly the issue explains the expected change, acceptance criteria, and next step.
Clear
Prerequisites
Elixir basicsMacros
Newbie friendlinessA 1-100 score estimating how approachable this issue is for first-time contributors.
85