New indentation-friendly syntax (What do you think?)

[ko1nksm]

The current syntax of ShellSpec is corrupted when it is formatted using shfmt.

Describe "example"
It "test"
When call echo "ok"
The should eq "ok"
End
End

However, you can work around this by using { }. This is a valid syntax in the current ShellSpec, but I have not tested it to see if it works well with all DSLs.

Describe "example"
{
　　It "test"
　　{
　　　　When call echo "ok"
　　　　The should eq "ok"
　　}
　　End
}
End

Do you think this is a good idea?

[bbros-dev]

Its interesting, and IMO a code smell that Shellspec isn't really shell. Rather than pursuing a snowflake implementation of the Gherkin/Cucumber ideas there would be some benefit of moving toward a conforming implementation, such as ready developed linter, etc. etc.:

https://github.com/vsiakka/gherkin-lint

[ko1nksm]

Does Gherkin/Cucumber allow you to mix shell script code into tests? For example, what would the code to mock a shell function look like? First of all, the premise is that it is useless unless it can test the code of a shell script.

And It's a completely different syntax than the current ShellSpec DSL, so that's what we should discuss in #36.

[ko1nksm]

You have downvoted to "New indentation-friendly syntax", what is the reason for that?

[bbros-dev]

You have downvoted to "New indentation-friendly syntax", what is the reason for that?

Just an opinion.... shfmt is telling you you don't have a shell script.
The workaround you're proposing doesn't change that. Instead it continues a long a no-mans land. Not shell not Gherkin.

Does Gherkin/Cucumber allow you to mix shell script code into tests?

In my experience it would. There are implementations in several languages (rather than only one) because it allows you test in each language language - your implementation of Gherkin is 70-80% complete (rough guess).
The implementation detail would likely have to change some degree.