Open jmgarnier opened 11 years ago
Googling "wrong assert" and "wrong ruby" both give this gem as the top 2 results (for me -- I know google does some customization these days) so I don't see a big need for a name change.
I think the reason you can't find wrong-related articles is there aren't any. Want to write one?
Fair enough. Premature optimization;)
There is one interesting resource, written by Myron:
http://myronmars.to/n/dev-blog/2012/07/mixing-and-matching-parts-of-rspec
it is result number 10 when searching "Wrong+RSpec", with plenty of false positives after number 1.
I'll write a blog post about "Wrong" and we'll see how easy it is to find.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Alex Chaffee notifications@github.comwrote:
Googling "wrong assert" and "wrong ruby" both give this gem as the top 2 results (for me -- I know google does some customization these days) so I don't see a big need for a name change.
I think the reason you can't find wrong-related articles is there aren't any. Want to write one?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/sconover/wrong/issues/26#issuecomment-12501535.
I have a taste for terse gem names. "thin", "unicorn", "wrong", etc. And I feel your lamentation in that random blog posts are less likely to show up.
But you can't do worse than "Test::Unit".
Seriously.
:+1:
also the project just deserves a cooler and more positive name anyway :) ideas:
Hi Steve,
Having written assert_* and should bla for 12 years, I was quite curious about the "Wrong" way. So far, so good:)
Googling "wrong" related articles is difficult, would you change the name? Something more googable like Wronga, wrongwrong, wrong-assertions, ...
Cheers,
Jean-Michel