At the risk of being a bit controversial... 2008/8/24 David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> Sadly, "spec" has just as much baggage, if not more, as "test" does. > These days we're calling these things "code examples," (tongue > pressing into cheek) so maybe we should change the name to > rcodeexample? Or rbehave? The rbehave.org domain is available (I registered it some time ago), and rspec has naturally evolved from its original goal of code-level specs to become a full-stack behaviour description framework. Just a thought. With regard to the stories and features thing, I see a BDD-shaped story as providing a context - and justification - for a feature: As a [stakeholder] *I want [a feature] *So that [I get some benefit] Before we started using this structure, a "story" would often just be the middle line, so it wasn't immediately obvious who the stakeholder was or why they wanted the feature, which in turn would often lead to over-work, under-work or just plain wrong-work. Of course the word "story" has its own baggage. In XP a story is "a placeholder/promise for a conversation", and as such could just be a title scribbled on a card. I wrote the story article<http://dannorth.net/whats-in-a-story>to put this all in context - if you ask 5 agile folks what a story is, you will likely get 6 answers. I agree that *the feature is the interesting thing*, and also that there may be several stories about the same feature in different broad contexts. In any event the scenarios provide the definition of "Done" for the feature, which is kind of the whole point. So I guess I'm saying I'm ambivalent about the story/feature distinction. I don't look at stories as work units as much as a more formal description of (some aspect of) a feature. After speaking with Aslak - and some FDD folks I met at Agile 2008 - I can fully agree with organising stories by feature. In fact in Peter Coad's FDD they have features within feature sets, within subject areas, which might well map to stories within features within [not sure - subject areas? themes? something broader anyway]. FDD features seem to be "thinner" than what I understand Aslak's description of features to be. One thing that makes me happy is that we seem to have consensus around the word "scenario" - which is where the outside-in work really starts. Cheers, Dan
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
