Is this good RSpec style?

nested_contexts.rb

  # RSpec style question for you here.
  #
  # Here is the code being tested:
  #
  # def extractor_name
  #   options[:extractor_name] || name
  # end
  #
  # My question is, I feel like I'm doing a lot of setup and
  # contexting just to write a pair of single-line specs. What do you
  # think of this style, and if you don't like it how would you
  # improve it? (If your answer is to not use RSpec, please include a
  # non-trolling reason, e.g. show me a different structure, not just
  # a port of this spec to Minitest. :-) )
  describe "#extractor_name" do
    context "with extractor name set" do
      let(:transform) {  Migratrix::Transforms::Transform.new(:pants_transform, { "extractor_name" => :pants_extractor })}
      it "returns extractor name" do
        transform.extractor_name.should == :pants_extractor
      end
    end

    context "without extractor name set" do
      let(:transform) {  Migratrix::Transforms::Transform.new(:pants_transform)}
      it "returns transform name" do
        transform.extractor_name.should == :pants_transform
      end
    end
  end

Totally agree. Though it must be said that for all practical purposes < 1% of the development population ever read them as documentation :)

THEN I AM THE 1% ;) ;) ;)

Hehe. Yes, I suspect we are - http://www.harukizaemon.com/2010/02/tests-as-documentation.html

let, context, and subject are all tools you can use to reduce duplication in a uniform way, but using them off the bat is a lot like saying "let's use the Factory and Strategy patterns to figure out what day of the week it is."

Why not just start off like this?

describe Migratrix::Transforms::Transform do
  it "#extractor_name returns extractor name when set" do
    transform = Migratrix::Transforms::Transform.new(:pants_transform, { "extractor_name" => :pants_extractor })
    transform.extractor_name.should eq(:pants_extractor)
  end

  it "#extractor_name returns transform name when no extractor name is set" do
    transform = Migratrix::Transforms::Transform.new(:pants_transform)
    transform.extractor_name.should eq(:pants_transform)
  end
end

This is quite readable just like that. At the point that you add a 2nd example of what happens when you set the extractor name, then you might add the context.

Although I can't help thinking that if everybody had a good pants extractor, these sorts of questions would just go away.