Hi there!
Just out of interest, I've had a quick look at the three alternatives (emphasis
on 'quick look', so might not be 100% accurate) - also, this is my very
personal opinion and I'm no testing expert:
(6+) JBehave (my favourite, hoping that this will get adopted)
+ I just *love* the plain-text-plus-pojo approach ("++" for that part)
(aside: the JUnitStory subclassing looks a bit complicated though, "-" for
that part)
++ last releases in Apr 2011 (3.3) and Feb 2011 (3.2) (meaning: very active
development)
++ website: example on home page, "getting started" page, modern looks,
syntax-highlighted examples
+ uses Git for development (plus for using a DVCS)
(0) JDave
- how is this API better than JUnit?
+ last releases in Jan 2011 (1.2) and Dec 2008 (1.1) (meaning: active
development)
-- website: no example on home page, "examples" not explained, minimal looks,
no syntax highlighting
(aside: home page links to http://behaviour-driven.org/, which is a big pink
Python exception)
++ development happens on GitHub (big plus for (1) using a DVCS (2) on a
popular hosting service)
(4-) EasyB
+ I like the terse, DSL-like syntax
- Groovy, not Java, not JUnit compatible out-of-the-box
-- last release Oct 2010 (0.9.8) (no clue how active dev. is; and developer
seems too self-conscious to go beyond 0.x yet)
- website: video on home page (+), complicated nav., how to get started?,
news?, no syntax-highlighting, code/text hard to tell apart
- SVN hosted on Google code
- Felix
On May 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Philipp Bärfuss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You might have noticed, by skimming the sent protocol, that we had a workshop
> on about how to write better tests. Now that the topic is risen I think it
> makes sense to do the next step and decide for a framework to 'standardize'
> our tests by following BDD patters. I think JDave or JBehave could be a nice
> match. They are both plain Java frameworks.
>
> After a first glance:
>
> JDave
> - plain Java, no text files needed
> - close to what we do today just more structured
> --> http://jdave.org/documentation.html
>
> JBehave
> - easy to read, more to write
> - we could potentially use our property style to define content structures
> --> http://jbehave.org/reference/latest/
>
> EasyB
> An other alternative would be to use EasyB (groovy based) but I am not sure
> if this makes things much easier. In any case I have to admit that this tests
> are very readable
> --> http://www.easyb.org
>
> I don't plan to make a big evaluation. We are simply going to vote for one.
> Once we have written the next set of tests we would evaluate the choice. Any
> comments suggestions are welcome.
>
> - philipp
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> For list details see
> http://www.magnolia-cms.com/home/community/mailing-lists.html
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
For list details see
http://www.magnolia-cms.com/home/community/mailing-lists.html
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
