Great point, thank you. I realised that in other scenarios of the same story, similar issues were popping up. Re-factoring with an aim to state both the actor and actually also the intention of the asserts, really helped the entire suite.
Thanks for that:) In article <[email protected]>, Mauro Talevi <[email protected]> wrote: > Who's the actor here? > > I would rephrase it to express its presence: e.g. > > When user waits for <idle> seconds > Then file is <file-state> > > On 17/01/2012 13:06, Christian Taylor wrote: > > I often encounter a strange issue that our developers comment on. > > Can the absence of action be used as an action? > > Shouldn't the scenario be re-written if that is the case? > > > > An example: > > > > Upload of data to a device that is configurable to close the file if the > > connection is idle for X seconds. > > > > Scenario: File is closed or remains open depending on duration of > > idle-time > > Given device configured with idle-time 5 seconds > > And connection is active > > When connection is idle for<idle> seconds > > Then file is<file-state> > > > > Examples: > > | idle | file-state | > > | 4 | open | > > | 6 | closed | > > > > But obviously, the When is not "really" an action as such. > > > > So, shouldn't it be re-phrased so the action is the change in state, > > instead of the duration of a certain state? > > > > How do others deal with this issue - is it even an issue? > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
