Using Testbox is ok to use

expect()

without using

describe

and

it

? meaning just like an `assert()`:

function testExpectationExamples () {
		var message = "A custom message can be prepended to the error message!";

		// toBe( expected, [message] ) : Assert something is equal to each other, no case is required
		var value = "myValue";
		expect(value).toBe("myvalue", message);
		expect(value).toBe("myValue", message);
		expect(value).toBe("MYVALUE", message);
}

If it works... sure. But why?

Our senior dev prefers xUnit style tests but really liked the

expect()

syntax

right. Well the one caveat is that I'd add is that yer using a tool in an "inappropriate" way, and ppl coming along after y'all are gonna look at it and go "what the *f**** were you lot thinking?" There's something to be said to using tooling the way it's expected to be used. Also: the BDD style of testing makes one's test feedback way clearer and more organised that xUnit style.

yes, they are separate

So in theory one could use them on MXUnit or [some other fictitious CFML-based testing framework]

In theory