Consider replacing uSpec with Rspec

[acook]

When I started this project, Rspec was a lumbering monolith, and many times larger than config_module's codebase, so I used my testing micro-framework uSpec instead.

Rspec has seen some serious improvements over the intervening time and some of its features might come in handy.

Basically the question that needs to be answered is if there's a clear win in using Rspec over uSpec.

[Spaceghost]

RSpec is nice because rails developers know it really well. minitest is nice because rubyists know it even if they've never used the library before.

RSpec seems a better direction if you want to make it easy for people to contribute.

[acook]

@Spaceghost true, but uSpec is "just Ruby". The syntax isn't weird - because there's almost none.

Here's some example code (from config_module's specs):

spec 'modules extended with ConfigModule will load configurations' do
  ExampleConfig.foo == 'bar'
end

spec 'modules extended with ConfigModule have "namespace" methods' do
  ExampleConfig.methods.include? :namespace
end

[acook]

Here's the output up on Travis-CI:

Currently the test suite runs in less time than Rspec takes to load too.

[Spaceghost]

I'm not against it. It looks pretty simple and clean and I get how I'd use it just from seeing a single test.

[acook]

uSpec seems to be doing just fine right now.