On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:25:49AM +0100, aslak hellesoy wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 1:04 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While the original post had DRY in the subject line I don't see this as > > a DRY issue. I see it as a visualization and maintenance issue. If I > > add a new role and I want to test each action for it's permissions it > > would be much easier for a customer to go down a spread sheet and > > designate within each cell what the response should be.. success or > > failure, etc... This would give the customer a bird's eye view of > > permissions for the entire app for each class of users. By using a > > separate scenario for each role in each story you will be creating a lot > > of copy and past work which will comminucate the same information a > > spreadsheet would but a lot more inefficently since someone would have > > to read hundreds of pages of stories. I love the plain text stories. > > We just have to remember that there are better ways to express large > > amounts of data than plain English. :) > > Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? > > > > I totally get your point. This is where FIT shines (or maybe Ryan's Matrix).
I completely agree. My experience is that you most often end up with two types of specs: flows and rules. Flows are best described in a story format, whereas rules are best described in a clear table format. Just take a simple password rule. Using flows to do this is overly verbose compared to fit. For example: |password|valid?| |short |false | |allchars|false | |goo0d1ne|true | And of course flows are not well documented using Fit. That is my basic theory for why it never took of. I have spent an hour or two trying to write a story runner for Fit, so far mostly reading the arcane Ruby Fit library. I'll get back when I have something to show. /Marcus -- Marcus Ahnve Blog: http://marcus.ahnve.net _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
