On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/14/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/14/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 10/14/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Does it add any value to even add things like "Joe" and "Acme" into a
> > > > story part? It seems like that is an implementation detail of your
> > > > story.
> > > >
> > > > Who cares about "Joe" or "Acme", don't you just care that you have a
> > > > user who works for a company. And if that company has a particular
> > > > trait wouldn't it be cleaner to identify the company by that trait
> > > > rather then a name in the description?
> > > >
> > > > IE: Given " a user who works for a company that sells cartoons"
> > > >
> > > > And then in your helper you can use "Joe" and Acme"
> > > >
> > > > def a_user_who_works_for_a_company_that_sells_cartoons
> > > > @user = Generate.user( "joe")
> > > > @company = Generate.company("Acme")
> > > > @company.employees = @user
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Zach Dennis
> > > > http://www.continuousthinking.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > >
> > > How do you create two users?
> > >
> >
> > Given "a user joe who works for a company that sells cartoons"
> > And "a user jim who works for a company that sells cartoons"
> >
> > Leave it in the description and have a well named helper method
> > responsible for making these users.
> >
> > def a_user_joe_who_works_for_a_company_that_sells_cartoons
> > create_a_user_who_works_for_a_company_that_sells_cartoons("joe")
> > end
> >
> > Otherwise you will still most likely end up with a helper method and
> > you haven't added any value except for making your story more cody by
> > passing arguments and creating unneeded do/end blocks.
> >
> > Given "a user who works for a company that sells cartoons", "Joe" do |name|
> > create_a_user_who_works_for_a_company_that_sells_cartoons("joe")
> > end
> >
> > Another option would be to not use a helper method at all and do the
> > real work inside of the do/end block, but no you've made your code not
> > reusable. How likely is it that you have one acceptance test where you
> > have a user who works for a company?
> >
> > Given "a user who works for a company that sells cartoons", "Joe" do |name|
> > @company = Generate.company("Acme")
> > @user = Generate.user("Joe")
> > @company.employees << @user
> > end
> >
> > I prefer hiding the implementation in well named helper methods as to
> > not take away from the a higher level of readability that the
> > acceptance test can accomplish. Granted, I'm shooting for the ideal,
> > which is a customer readable/writable acceptance test.
> >
> > I don't think argument passing in story parts is wrong, I think that
> > how they are being used in this thread is wrong. For example for a
> > game you may have an acceptance test that looks like:
> >
> > Given "a user playing the game"
> > When "they make a guess of", 200_000
> > # etc...
> >
> > This makes more sense to me then passing in something which adds no
> > value to the test, like the user's name "Joe"
>
> That's a fair argument against this example, however I think that the
> point of the example is that there will be cases with more than one
> variable. For example:
>
> Given "a ? account with ? dollars"
>
> We could limit ourselves to one argument per method:
>
> Given "a savings account"
> And "500 dollars in the account"
>
> But that strikes me as less user friendly as:
>
> Given "a savings account with 500 dollars"
>
> The syntax Dan introduced earlier in this thread comes from a
> conversation he and I had a while back about FitLibrary's DoFixture,
> which uses Smalltalk-style keyword messages where every other cell is
> part of a method name:
>
> Given "a user of type", "Admin", "making a request for", "user list"
>
> This would result in a call to
> a_user_of_type_making_a_request_for("Admin", "user list"). One way we
> might be able to tie that Zach's ideal (a normal sentence w/ lots of
> helper methods) and make it a bit smarter would be something like
> this:
>
> def a__account_with__dollars(account_type, amount)
> account = account_types[account_type].new(amount)
> end
>
> When the runner sees anything sent to Given, When or Then (or And)
> that matches /^a\b(.+?)\baccount with\b(.+?)\bdollars$/, it would pass
> $1.strip() and $2.strip() to this method.
>
> The only problem with this is that I can easily imagine such patterns
> starting to overlap in a larger story set, potentially producing
> unwanted results. But perhaps that's not as big a problem as I think?
> Thoughts?
>
> Dan - I'm curious as to your thoughts re: this supporting the perfect
> vision of customer-readable/writable Acceptance Tests that Zach is
> looking for.
>
> Thoughts?
Nevermind. Pat Maddox just suggested a better idea in another thread
on this list:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-October/003704.html
Cheers,
David
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Zach Dennis
> > http://www.continuousthinking.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
