I'd agree with that. The test doesn't seem that readable. I have a feeling there is quite a bit that preceeds that?
Try to break it down and test behaviour. I try to remain data agnostic where possible. Regards, Dan On 3 October 2011 11:02, louis gueye <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems hard, > > Looks like you're giving your test too muck responsibility which is a code > smell. > > Try to split up the test, you'll gain lisibility. > > Regards, > > Louis. > > 2011/10/3 Adrien Ruffie - Petals Link <[email protected]> > >> Hello, >> >> it is possible to combine table examples in table parameters ? Like >> following scenario: >> >> Then after <processingDelay> second(s), >> an existing MONIT record is logged on <nodeName> by mail component >> containing strictly following info in this order: >> | key | value | >> | traceCode | =consumeFlowStepBegin | >> | flowInstanceId | ~[a-f0-9]{8}-[a-f0-9]{4}-[a-** >> f0-9]{4}-[a-f0-9]{4}-[a-f0-9]{**12} | >> | flowStepId | ~[a-f0-9]{8}-[a-f0-9]{4}-[a-** >> f0-9]{4}-[a-f0-9]{4}-[a-f0-9]{**12} | >> |flowInterfaceName| =<interfaceName> | >> |flowServiceName | =<serviceName> | >> |flowEndpointName | =<endpointName> | >> |flowOperationName| =<operationName> | >> |scheme | =<scheme> | >> |host | =<mailHost> | >> |port | =<schemePort> | >> |user | =<user>@<domain> | >> |folder | =INBOX | >> >> Examples: >> | nodeHost | nodeName | user | domain | password | scheme | mailHost | >> schemePort | interfaceName | serviceName | endpointName | pollingPeriod | >> processingDelay| >> | localhost | node1 | user1 | domain1.org | password1 | pop3 | localhost >> | 8110 | {http://petalslink.org}**interfaceName1 | {http://petalslink.org >> }**serviceName1 | endpointName1 | 2 | 5 | >> >> >> Thank, best regars, >> >> Adrien Ruffié >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >
