I am confused also, as to both what output you don't like that motivated chell and what exactly hspec silences :) Suffice to say I am able to get a small relevant error message on failure with hspec. I am adding the hspec maintainer to this e-mail- he can answer any of your questions.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:03 AM, John Millikin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmillikin@gmail.com">jmillikin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:52, Greg Weber <<a href="mailto:greg@gregweber.info">greg@gregweber.info</a>> wrote:<br>
> It silences HUnit's output, but will tell you what happens when there is a<br>
> failure- which I think is what you want. There are a few available output<br>
> formatters if you don't like the default output, or you can write your own<br>
> output formatter.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm a bit confused. From what I can tell, HUnit does not output<br>
*anything* just from running a test -- the result has to be printed<br>
manually. What are you silencing?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> BDD is really a red herring. Instead of using function names to name tests<br>
> you can use strings, which are inherently more descriptive. In chell you<br>
> already have `assertions "numbers"`, in hspec it would be `it "numbers"`.<br>
> The preferred style it to remove `test test_Numbers and the test_Numbers<br>
> definition` which are redundant in this case, and instead place that inline<br>
> where you define the suite, although that is optional.<br>
> So I really can't tell any difference betwee "BDD" and "pass/fail<br>
> assertions". You still just use assertions in hspec.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>