Super-light ’n’ sexy specs / testing
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Failed to load latest commit information.



This is a super-light library that attempts to enable a “literate” form of code-testing. This library is a part of a suite of tools intended to be used together; alongside its brethren, it allows for “literate” specifications that look something like this: Dog do
  some_breed = Dog::Shetland          { it.breed == Dog::Labrador } { it.breed == a_breed } Dog.class_method :bark do
    a_dog =
    a_dog.bark.check { |rv| rv == 'arf' }

Ideas, feature requests, and bugs can be reported on the GitHub issue tracker:


If you'll pay attention to the above example, you'll notice we do things a little differently around here. The conventions that Speck is designed to enable include:

  • first and foremost, we want the specification to be source-code, that is, we want it to read like any Ruby code anywhere else. Our ‘checks’ (called assertions in other environments) simply boil down to a target and a block to execute against that target. This is intended to be very idiomatic Ruby-style code.
  • secondary to the former, we also like it when the checks themselves read a bit like an English sentence. For example, Slack (see below) uses the it library to make the blocks look a little more readable in the usual case.
    • this is especially powerful, because Spark extracts the source-code responsible for each check, and hilights it based on the execution of that check. Thus, specification code itself is self- documenting output for your test suite.
  • related to that, we tend to abstract the specifics of each check into variables, named in such a way as to express the generic form of that specific element. If we're testing that a dog takes a breed, but not which breed it takes, we place a relevant breed into some_breed. Similarly, we might put an arbitrary numeric argument into a variable named some_number instead of using the developer standards of 42 or 1337. If, however, we were testing specific functionality related to handling of the magic number 2, as opposed to 1 or 3, then we'd write the 2 directly into the check-line.
  • our specification sections directly include what they're testing, instead of a description thereof in a string. Whether this is an class, an instance method, or something else entirely.

Generally speaking, we try to write code that self-describes what it's testing, instead of writing lots of english sentences in a DSL to redundantly describe the code being tested. (Lookin' at you, RSpec 'n friends.)


I've intentionally designed Speck to be tiny and modular. Speck itself, here, is three extremely brief files. To do more interesting things, and make specks easier to write, I've provided several “sister libraries” that expand upon what Speck itself does:

  • Slack: Provides convenience methods for creating specks directly from various objects and values, and various other comparators and tools to make writing specks easier.
  • Spark: Provides a Rake task and other tools that beautifully runs your specks.
  • Smock: Provides a “mocking and spying” toolkit, for testing intricate code that you can't easily decouple enough to test in minutae.

In no way are any of these required to use Speck, nor do any of them inter-depend upon eachother. Mix-and-match as you desire. Or, y'know, write your own.


This project is licensed very openly for your use, under a variation of the ‘MIT license.’ Details are available in LICENSE.