It reminds me of Spock tests written in Groovy. I have to help maintain a code base like that now at work where a Groovy zealot (who has moved on) convinced the teams to write tests in Groovy instead of Java.
When a test fails, the method name describes what it was supposed to do written out like a sentence enclosed in double quotes which seems like a win but not much of one.
When you need to add a new test or analyze if an existing test needs to be changed, you have to eyeball all the code in the test class because even with methods named with spaces, it's not always indicative of what it does.
With Java, I can sort a list of method names and have a better idea immediately what needs to be updated or added.
Spock is an exercise in syntax cleverness with regular confusion opportunity and little gain IMO. Way too much implicit syntax that IDEs struggle with.
Refactoring Spock tests sucks due to how the context is different based on the clause you’re in.
When a test fails, the method name describes what it was supposed to do written out like a sentence enclosed in double quotes which seems like a win but not much of one.
When you need to add a new test or analyze if an existing test needs to be changed, you have to eyeball all the code in the test class because even with methods named with spaces, it's not always indicative of what it does.
With Java, I can sort a list of method names and have a better idea immediately what needs to be updated or added.