Limit number of test classes in file to one

[ornithocoder]

One of the things I like the most about Quick is the possibility to isolate scenarios in nested blocks to better describe the behavior of the system under test.

As result, rare are the cases were one would need to implement two or more QuickSpecs in the same test file. A single QuickSpec per file is enough.

rule request, single quick spec per file, opt-in

[marcelofabri]

Should this also be applied to XCTestCase?

[ornithocoder]

@marcelofabri I'm not sure, but I more inclined to say no.

One might want to test the system under test with different parameters and a single pair of setUp and tearDown might not be enough to cover all the cases. Several XCTestCase classes might be needed to define all these different "contexts".

Using Quick, these are different setups would live inside the same QuickSpec class, but nested under describes or contexts.

[marcelofabri]

But then one could do the setup in each test or even split the XCTestCase into another file. I don't think I've ever seen a project that had two (or more) XCTestCase in the same file.

[ornithocoder]

IMO setup should never happen inside the test. Not when using Quick/Cedar/etc.. at least. The 'it' block should be only for verifying the expectation.

I can either change this rule to cover XCTestCase or create a new (and similar rule) for XCTestCase.

[ornithocoder]

PR updated :-)

[marcelofabri]

Closed in #1780