On 17 apr 2008, at 15:44, Joseph Wilk wrote: > Hello, > > I've come across a similar problem. Sharing the steps is the easy bit. > And I've started to create a 'useful_steps.rb' for storing very common > steps.
So have I. I use a lot of "Given a number of flurps in the system", and "When I add a new zoink", most as as refactored and abstracted as possible in common_steps.rb. Also, a form_steps.rb for common webrat steps. > I have just copy and pasted the plain text stories before but since > they > use the same steps, there was little new steps to write. ..which isn't wrong per se imho. Steps for removing, and editing a post all start from the same initial state, "Given an existing post". > It feels like the steps are where you want to keep it dry but the > stories are the domain specific language to writing > acceptance/integration tests. Exactly. Stories may share steps, but the overal flow is always different. If not, your stories aren't 100% accurate. > So it is similar problem to saying that models contain lots of > 'has_ones' and hence are not dry. Nice analogy :) gr, bartz > Well thats the conclusions I've been coming to after using stories > for a > while. > > -- > Joseph Wilk > http://www.joesniff.co.uk > > > > Tim Haines wrote: >> Hi y'all >> >> I'm about to start writing up the stories for my second resource. >> The >> second resource is so similar to the first that I feel a good way >> for me >> to >> start might be to copy and paste the stories and edit from there. >> This >> seems very anti-dry though. Am I missing something obvious, or would >> you >> expect (and be happy with) a lot of duplication between stories? >> >> Tim. > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
