So does my

val

version, doesn't it?

Ahh yeah sorry, I don’t think that would be possible on how specs are created.

actually I wouldn't even declare a

val

to emulate that behavior, I would simply do:

with(Calculator()) {
 ...
}

No need for any functionality in Spek and users are free to share or not share the instance of their

Calculator

.

More power to users, less work for the Spek team.

-.kt

@cedric: something like this?^

That would work too, you can wrap multiple

it

specs with it. Or do that inside a

it

. Bottom line is: leverage the language as much as possible while adding as few features as possible.

I would also recommend to not go too crazy with assertions, encourage users to use

assert4j

,

hamcrest

or whatever. Again, more flexibility for users, less work for you and you can focus on the actual core functionality of Spek

There would be too much boilerplate, especially with objects that require a lot of initialisation.

Ahh yes, spek won’t provide any assertions. Users will have to choose what they want. kotlin-test, hamkrest, etc...

Your call really. To me, old fart with some framework authorship experience, the

subject

feature raises a bunch of red flags.

red flags, like?

I agree with leveraging the language features, but readability is important as well.

To me

subject

locks users in a certain mode and duplicates a feature Kotlin already gives you (a simple property) and it's not flexible. For example, what if you want two of your

it

specs to share a subject but all the others to use a different instance?

Wouldn’t that make those tests brittle? Sharing state in tests is a code smell to me.

For unit tests, probably. For integration tests, no.

Give your users the choice.

But again, the main argument is: less work for you 🙂

I would love more work 🙂

Anyways, integration tests is something to consider

Pick your battles carefully. Remember that each feature you add means 1) more testing for you to do and 2) more ways in which that feature will interact with previous features. We're talking factorials here.

Yeah, thanks 🙂 Personally i find value in it, but the points you’ve raised make sense.

Let’s just wait for more feedback 🙂

You can never go wrong with that 🙂

Not sure if you saw the other feature, it works well with

subjects

. It allows you to share specs

I saw it, I don't an opinion on it 🙂

My concern a bit is giving too many options to people.

does anyone use Spek for Espresso tests?

not yet, but will investigate it in near future

is this a known limitation that you can't use full stops in the descriptions?