On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23 Sep 2008, at 02:35, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> This should work right now with both 'rake spec' and 'cucumber features'
>
> It does, but only as "cucumber features" if I do "cucumber
> features/descriptions/xyz.feature" it doesn't find the the step file on it's
> own.
"the step file" assumes a one to one mapping of feature files to step
files. I tend to reuse steps across features, so this has little value
for me, personally. I think it is a constraint that might serve some
people's needs well, but not everybody's.
> Ben's TextMate Cucumber bundle reflects this, as it's "go to alternate file"
> command creates steps one level down from the descriptions.
>
> Kyle's "story" command uses the structure stories/stories and stories/steps
> so I'm used to working that way.
While I appreciate that some people like to work this way, I don't
think everyone does and I don't think cucumber should be enforcing
conventions based on this.
What I think *would* make sense is to offer up some
configuration/mapping scheme that allows you to manage this in a
number of different ways.
For example, we could add something like autotest uses - if a
.cucumber file exists it gets loaded before anything else, and it can
be used to describe mappings as autotest does:
Autotest.add_hook :initialize do |at|
at.add_mapping %r%features/(.*).feature% do |filename, match|
at.files_matching %r%features/#{match}.rb
end
end
Something along those lines could help satisfy everyone's needs, no? WDYT?
> My stories folder always had extra dirs, so I find the layout:
> features/
> descriptions/
> apply.feature
> open.feature
> start.feature
> stop.feature
> zoom.feature
> matchers/
> steps/
> support/
>
> MUCH easier to follow than:
> features/
> apply.feature
> matchers/
> open.feature
> start.feature
> steps/
> stop.feature
> support/
> zoom.feature
>
> This is just how I use it anyway - maybe I'm alone in adding extra folders
> like that. But I still find the nested structure much more logical than the
> partially flat one.
I see where you're coming from in terms of visibility. I tend to use
something like this:
features/
reservations/
schedules/
steps/
supplies/
support/
Admittedly, steps and support are not like reservations, schedules and
supplies, but this has worked just fine for me so far.
FWIW,
David
>
> Ashley
>
> --
> http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
> http://aviewfromafar.net/
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
