On 2/9/06, Hugh Sasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Bill Agee wrote: > > > On the other hand, not using the XML config files will probably make > > for a steeper learning curve. The tradeoffs are interesting. > > Why is this, do you think? OK, XML syntax is pretty standard, but > the semantics will have to be learned. At least with Ruby you can > add new methods which wrap behaviour, if you wish to simplify common > cases. Which aspects of the Ruby syntax present difficulties for > the newcomer? I could probably have told you a few years back, but > now I'm fairly used to it, and in the domain of testing, I cannot > consider this to be obvious. But it may be that commonly confusing > cases may be re-written to be clear.
I was mainly thinking about non-programmers; for testers without programming experience, using an XML testing "language" to build tests could result in more success up front (which I think is important in sustaining interest in automated testing, and keeping people from abandoning automation suites/frameworks/etc). Along the same psychological lines, learning by modifying existing cases written in XML could feel less intimidating than learning by reviewing raw Ruby scripts. But I agree that Ruby is pretty painless to learn. So much so that those wanting to use a Ruby framework for testing are better off knowing enough of the language to compose test cases in Ruby, without too much abstraction (whether into XML or some other format). Thanks Bill _______________________________________________ Wtr-general mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
