<commit_before>### Introducing NJasmine

NJasmine is a RSpec-ish test language inspired by the javasscript test library Jasmine (http://pivotal.github.com/jasmine/) for C# / .Net programming.

    given("some preconditions", () => {

        var range = 10;

        when("the system under test is ran", () => {

            var sut = new SystemUnderTest();

            bool score = arrange(() => sut.Fire(range));

            then("win!", () => {

                expect(() => score);
            });
        });
    });

### Why another .Net BDD testing framework?  

I classify the existing frameworks into two categories: frameworks like Rail's Cucumber test framework, and frameworks like Rail's RSpec test framework.

The cucumber test frameworks for .NET (SpecFlow, NBehave) are a different beast entirely.  I honestly just haven't gone that far into BDD.  The cucumber style tests do a good job of producing specs that are human readable, but there is a good amount of overhead before you actually write code.  I just haven't been interested in going there, I see such tools as complementary to the RSpec style frameworks.<commit_msg>spelling matters<commit_after>### Introducing NJasmine

NJasmine is a RSpec-ish test language inspired by the javascript test library Jasmine (http://pivotal.github.com/jasmine/) for C# / .Net programming.

    given("some preconditions", () => {

        var range = 10;

        when("the system under test is ran", () => {

            var sut = new SystemUnderTest();

            bool score = arrange(() => sut.Fire(range));

            then("win!", () => {

                expect(() => score);
            });
        });
    });

### Why another .Net BDD testing framework?  

I classify the existing frameworks into two categories: frameworks like Rail's Cucumber test framework, and frameworks like Rail's RSpec test framework.

The cucumber test frameworks for .NET (SpecFlow, NBehave) are a different beast entirely.  I honestly just haven't gone that far into BDD.  The cucumber style tests do a good job of producing specs that are human readable, but there is a good amount of overhead before you actually write code.  I just haven't been interested in going there, I see such tools as complementary to the RSpec style frameworks.
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.08995633187772925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017467248908296944, 'mean_word_length': 2.9774305555555554, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 13, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '2159946', 'n_tokens_mistral': 623, 'n_tokens_neox': 553, 'n_words': 278}