On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Michael Latta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the clarrification of your intent for the comment. After reading > the linked threads I have the following questions/comments: > > 1) All the responses to sharing story content get "use ruby" as the > response. > 2( I understand you appear to find this adequate. I do not. > 3) Should I open a new ticket for my suggestion or just add to the existing > ticket?
That ticket (http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/3) is fine. The thing that Aslak is already planning on doesn't really address aggregating steps written in "scenario language". > > What I would like to see is something like a "feature" that is just for > reuse. The current scenario and feature in cucumber combine 2 concepts: the > definition of a scenario/feature and the execution of a scenario/feature. > This is like being unable to create a function without calling it > immediately in place. While I appreciate for the top level of control this > is convenient and natural for the reader. It largely prevents reuse. I > would like a new keyword that just defines a sequence of steps as one step. > I want step definitions in the story language. > > StepGiven: Log in as admin > Given: I am registered as admin, David, secret > When I log in with David, secret > Then I should see "Welcome David" > And I should see a link to "Manage Content" > > Scenario: Admin clicks on "Manage Content" > Given Log in as admin > When I click on "Manage Content" > Then I should see a link to "Go back to menu" > > This would only execute the scenario once, unlike GivenScenario. You can > place StepGiven, and StepWhen, and StepThen in any file and they only define > steps that can be used by other content. They can reference steps created > in either ruby or story language. You can choose to present the nested > steps or not. In HTML output it could be expanded and collapsed. In text > output there could be an option to limit output nesting depth. > > To make this fully functional there should be a Require: that allows files > with step definitions to be required, solving most of your shared content > objections for file management. Content can be required and need not be > executed unless so desired and referenced by a scenario. > > It would require the title for the Steps to be regex expressions and > variables dealt with in stories I guess. But, when presenting to customers > having shared content is important for validation of the specifications. > For acceptance testing one level may be enough, but for specifications > there needs to be nesting and shared content that can be verified by the > customer or their non-programmer representative or domain experts. For > reference the project I hope to use this on is expected to be 50-100 > technical people. We are going to really need readable specs for business > logic, UI, and so on. > > What do you think? I'm not comfortable with the idea of stripping out the Thens or adding constructs like Require to features. Dependencies are a code concept and I think that stating dependencies in a feature would be more confusing that clarifying. I do appreciate the goal, however, of being able to express "macros" in "scenario" language. What I'd propose is that we add a macros directory in which we'd have macro definition files that are just like the ruby step definition files. So while you could define such a macro in a ruby file like this (once Aslak implements it): Given "I am logged in as admin" do Given "I am registered as admin, David, secret" When "I log in with David, secret" end ... you'd also be able to do it in a macro file like this (macro is just a suggestion, feel free to counter): Macros: Given: I am logged in as admin Given I am registered as admin, David, secret When I log in with David, secret WDYT about that? Now you could use ruby or "scenario language" to say: Scenario: admin can manage content Given I am logged in as admin Then I should see I should see a link to "Manage Content" Although, now that I see this, I don't like the fact that the Given includes a When (an action). I think I'd rather see this expressed this way: Macros: When: I log in as admin Given I am registered as admin, David, secret When I log in with David, secret Scenario: admin can manage content When I log in as admin Then I should see I should see a link to "Manage Content" Then the question becomes whether the output should "explode" the macro for the reader. I think it would be useful sometimes, and detrimental other times. I guess, in the end, I might never use this feature myself, even if it was added. I find the currently available tools much simpler. Any other thoughts on this? David > > Michael > > > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 8:52 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Michael Latta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> The problem I have with this reasoning is that the point of plain text >>> stories is to get more stakeholder involvement. Being able to express >>> shared content in plain text allows the non-programmer reader to verify >>> more >>> details (for example UI interactions within a high level story). I would >>> like to be able to express the high level intent of the scenario and then >>> (still in readable english like text) describe the UI interactions for >>> each >>> step, or the business logic details, or what ever should be verified by >>> the >>> customer to be correct about the details. Saying "you can always use >>> ruby" >>> assumes the audience is programmers. >> >> I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I made no such assumption. I >> said very specifically that this was audience dependent and that if >> you're audience is customers you can look at it one way, but if it's >> just developers you can use the Ruby tools. I can see why you might be >> confused by "If you're a developer" rather than "if your audience is >> all developers," but that was the intent. >> >> In terms of ways of sharing content, there is some interesting >> discussion going on around Cucumber, which will replace Story Runner. >> Have a look at these: >> >> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2008/9/22/cucumber >> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/3 >> >> Please feel free to join the conversation there, or on this list. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >>> In most cases this is not the case for >>> several levels of detail on the kinds of projects I am working. >>> Michael >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:00 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Yi Wen wrote: >>>> >>>>> In David's presentation @ RailsConf, he has this example: >>>>> >>>>> Story: measure progress towards registration goals >>>>> As a conference organizer >>>>> I want to see a report of registrations >>>>> So that I can measure progress towards registration goals >>>>> >>>>> Scenario: one registration shows as 1% >>>>> Given a goal of 200 registrations >>>>> When 1 attendee registers >>>>> Then the goal should be 1% achieved >>>>> >>>>> Scenario: one registration less than the goal shows as 99% >>>>> Given a goal of 200 registrations >>>>> When 199 attendees register >>>>> Then the goal should be 99% achieved >>>>> >>>>> Notice that Given part is exactly the same for both scenarios. Does it >>>>> possible to DRY up it a little bit by putting Given up to right after >>>>> Story part? Or it is just too crazy? >>>> >>>> Depends on who the audience is. If you're using plain text w/ customers, >>>> yes it's crazy. The whole point is to keep things non-programatic. >>>> >>>> If you're a developer, then write the stuff in pure Ruby and you have >>>> plenty of language-tools to DRY things up to your heart's content. >>> >>> Or leave the plain-text MOIST* and rejoice in the fact that the step can >>> be >>> shared and therefor DRY things up. >>> >>> *MOIST = More Obvious In Simple Text >>> >>> -- >>> Rick DeNatale >>> >>> My blog on Ruby >>> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
