Dne 3.3.2016 v 08:39 Stefan Schubert napsal(a): [...] > I fully agree here. In my former team (SCC) we have used cucumber and I have > not > really seen the benefits in the daily work. The idea has been that PM should > give > us the requirements in cucumber format. That has never happend ;-)
Exactly. Cucumber is great when you can get the requirements from outside (PMs, designers, users...) as they can use "English" language. (It's actually not a free form text, it has some keywords and structure so they have to learn it a bit, but it's far more human friendly than RSpec). The problem is that you have to maintain the intermediate part which translates the specification into executable Ruby code. If your tests are too different you need to maintain many transformation rules. Additionaly cucumber is suitable for high level tests as the descriptions are high level. That usually means integration tests, for low level unit tests it's not suitable. And we write mainly unit tests for YaST... Actually the main reason why I switched to cucumber in the rubocop-yast is that cucumber supports multiline arguments in verbatim format [1]. That makes the tests more readable. But this is a specific case as we need to test Ruby code (as string literal) written in Ruby code. Normally you would need to escape all quotes, newlines and that would make it hardly readable... [1] https://github.com/yast/rubocop-yast/blob/master/features/builtins_cop.feature#L53 -- -- Ladislav Slezák Appliance department / YaST Developer Lihovarská 1060/12 190 00 Prague 9 / Czech Republic tel: +420 284 028 960 [email protected] SUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
