rspec users - Dec 2008 - [Cucumber] a few clarifications please...

Hi Guys,

Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!

I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
someone has a minute or two...

FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page and just seek
confirmation:

There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given",
"then" and
"when" (as well as "and" and "but), correct? These are
simply naming
conventions that denote the well known "Build/Operate/Check" pattern
but have no real physical relationship, they''re just tags that denote
the steps.

A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but nothing is
implemented.

A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some code and
doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.

A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that matched the
feature.

You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
(really don''t know how this works, will a test sequence ever go
''backwards''?)

Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step won''t be
found.

Thanks very much,

Tim

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>
> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
> someone has a minute or two...
>
> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page and just
seek
> confirmation:
>
> There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given",
"then" and
> "when" (as well as "and" and "but), correct? These
are simply naming
> conventions that denote the well known "Build/Operate/Check"
pattern
> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just tags that
denote
> the steps.
Correct.
> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but nothing
is
> implemented.
Correct.
> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some code
and
> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
Or raise an error.
> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that matched the
feature.
Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
pending or failed.
> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
> (really don''t know how this works, will a test sequence ever go
> ''backwards''?)
Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
match the step in the feature.
> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step won''t be
found.
Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should probably
be made collaboratively.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Thank you David. This helps a lot. Question, if there are matching
steps...will cucumber find the first matching step during execution? I
noticed a test executing at higher line numbers and then picking up a
step with a lower line number.

Thanks again,

Tim

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>>
>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
>> someone has a minute or two...
>>
>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page and
just seek
>> confirmation:
>>
>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given",
"then" and
>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but), correct?
These are simply naming
>> conventions that denote the well known "Build/Operate/Check"
pattern
>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just tags that
denote
>> the steps.
>
> Correct.
>
>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but
nothing is
>> implemented.
>
> Correct.
>
>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some
code and
>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>
> Or raise an error.
>
>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that matched
the feature.
>
> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
> pending or failed.
>
>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test sequence ever
go
>> ''backwards''?)
>
> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
> match the step in the feature.
>
>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
>
> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should probably
> be made collaboratively.
>
>>
>> Thanks very much,
>>
>> Tim
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
>   
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>>
>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
>> someone has a minute or two...
>>
>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page and
just seek
>> confirmation:
>>
>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given",
"then" and
>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but), correct?
These are simply naming
>> conventions that denote the well known "Build/Operate/Check"
pattern
>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just tags that
denote
>> the steps.
>>     
>
> Correct.
>
>   
>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but
nothing is
>> implemented.
>>     
>
> Correct.
>   
In the latest version in Github (0.1.13) you can also force steps which 
have an implementation to the pending state using the
''pending'' method
which works in the same way as Rspec''s pending.

When "I want to be lazy" do
  pending "Implement me!"
end

--
Joseph Wilk
http://blog.josephwilk.net
>   
>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some
code and
>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>>     
>
> Or raise an error.
>
>   
>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that matched
the feature.
>>     
>
> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
> pending or failed.
>
>   
>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test sequence ever
go
>> ''backwards''?)
>>     
>
> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
> match the step in the feature.
>
>   
>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
>>     
>
> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should probably
> be made collaboratively.
>
>   
>> Thanks very much,
>>
>> Tim
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thank you David. This helps a lot. Question, if there are matching
> steps...will cucumber find the first matching step during execution? I
> noticed a test executing at higher line numbers and then picking up a
> step with a lower line number.
Again, cucumber looks at all of the steps and throws an error if more
than one will match your step. So order should not be an issue.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
>>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>>>
>>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
>>> someone has a minute or two...
>>>
>>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page and
just seek
>>> confirmation:
>>>
>>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given",
"then" and
>>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but),
correct? These are simply naming
>>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
>>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just tags
that denote
>>> the steps.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but
nothing is
>>> implemented.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some
code and
>>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>>
>> Or raise an error.
>>
>>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that
matched the feature.
>>
>> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
>> pending or failed.
>>
>>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
>>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
>>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test sequence
ever go
>>> ''backwards''?)
>>
>> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
>> match the step in the feature.
>>
>>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
>>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
>>
>> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
>> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should probably
>> be made collaboratively.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks very much,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Great information guys, making some progress on this end. It is much
appreciated.

Discovered that step definitions can not be duplicated even across
step files. Is this correct?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Tim

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Joseph Wilk <josephwilk at
joesniff.co.uk> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
>>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>>>
>>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
>>> someone has a minute or two...
>>>
>>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page and
just seek
>>> confirmation:
>>>
>>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given",
"then" and
>>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but),
correct? These are simply naming
>>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
>>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just tags
that denote
>>> the steps.
>>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but
nothing is
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>
> In the latest version in Github (0.1.13) you can also force steps which
have
> an implementation to the pending state using the
''pending'' method which
> works in the same way as Rspec''s pending.
>
> When "I want to be lazy" do
>  pending "Implement me!"
> end
>
> --
> Joseph Wilk
> http://blog.josephwilk.net
>
>>
>>>
>>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some
code and
>>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>>>
>>
>> Or raise an error.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that
matched the
>>> feature.
>>>
>>
>> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
>> pending or failed.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
>>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
>>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test sequence
ever go
>>> ''backwards''?)
>>>
>>
>> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
>> match the step in the feature.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
>>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
>> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should probably
>> be made collaboratively.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks very much,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Thank you David. This helps a lot. Question, if there are matching
> > steps...will cucumber find the first matching step during execution? I
> > noticed a test executing at higher line numbers and then picking up a
> > step with a lower line number.
>
> Again, cucumber looks at all of the steps and throws an error if more
> than one will match your step. So order should not be an issue.
>
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Guys,
> >>>
> >>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better
at
> >>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
> >>>
> >>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation,
if
> >>> someone has a minute or two...
> >>>
> >>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then
page and just seek
> >>> confirmation:
> >>>
> >>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords
"given", "then" and
> >>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but),
correct? These are simply naming
> >>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
> >>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just
tags that denote
> >>> the steps.
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching
step but nothing is
> >>> implemented.
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
>
A "pending" step (plain text) is any step that *does not* have a
matching
step definition (regexp+proc).
-Or (as of 0.1.13) a matching step definition that raises Pending (for
example by calling #pending).

>
> >>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has
some code and
> >>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
> >>
> >> Or raise an error.
> >>
> >>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found
that matched the
> feature.
> >>
> >> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
> >> pending or failed.
> >>
> >>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the
step
> >>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that
matches
> >>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test
sequence ever go
> >>> ''backwards''?)
> >>
> >> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
> >> match the step in the feature.
> >>
> >>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is
risky as
> >>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
> >>
> >> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
> >> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should
probably
> >> be made collaboratively.
> >>
>
Every time something is changed, you run Cucumber immediately, and then
you''ll know if you broke something.

Aslak

>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks very much,
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rspec-users mailing list
> >>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081217/ebbe7f34/attachment.html>

Tim Walker wrote:
> Great information guys, making some progress on this end. It is much
> appreciated.
>
> Discovered that step definitions can not be duplicated even across
> step files. Is this correct?
>
>   
Correct. They can''t be duplicated in any given process, no mater what 
file(s) the definitions come from.

-Ben
> Thanks again.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Joseph Wilk <josephwilk at
joesniff.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
>>>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>>>>
>>>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
>>>> someone has a minute or two...
>>>>
>>>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then page
and just seek
>>>> confirmation:
>>>>
>>>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords
"given", "then" and
>>>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but),
correct? These are simply naming
>>>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
>>>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just
tags that denote
>>>> the steps.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step
but nothing is
>>>> implemented.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>       
>> In the latest version in Github (0.1.13) you can also force steps which
have
>> an implementation to the pending state using the
''pending'' method which
>> works in the same way as Rspec''s pending.
>>
>> When "I want to be lazy" do
>>  pending "Implement me!"
>> end
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Wilk
>> http://blog.josephwilk.net
>>
>>     
>>>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has
some code and
>>>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Or raise an error.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that
matched the
>>>> feature.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
>>> pending or failed.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the
step
>>>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that
matches
>>>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test
sequence ever go
>>>> ''backwards''?)
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
>>> match the step in the feature.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky
as
>>>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
>>> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should
probably
>>> be made collaboratively.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Thanks very much,
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Great information guys, making some progress on this end. It is much
> appreciated.
>
> Discovered that step definitions can not be duplicated even across
> step files. Is this correct?
>
Regexen can not be the same (even if the blocks are different). I just
refactored the wiki a little and added a new page about this:
http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/wikis/step-definitions

Aslak

> Thanks again.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Joseph Wilk <josephwilk at
joesniff.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > David Chelimsky wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Guys,
> >>>
> >>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better
at
> >>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
> >>>
> >>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation,
if
> >>> someone has a minute or two...
> >>>
> >>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then
page and just seek
> >>> confirmation:
> >>>
> >>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords
"given", "then" and
> >>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but),
correct? These are simply naming
> >>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
> >>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re just
tags that denote
> >>> the steps.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching
step but nothing is
> >>> implemented.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >
> > In the latest version in Github (0.1.13) you can also force steps
which
> have
> > an implementation to the pending state using the
''pending'' method which
> > works in the same way as Rspec''s pending.
> >
> > When "I want to be lazy" do
> >  pending "Implement me!"
> > end
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Wilk
> > http://blog.josephwilk.net
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has
some code and
> >>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Or raise an error.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found
that matched the
> >>> feature.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
> >> pending or failed.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the
step
> >>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that
matches
> >>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test
sequence ever go
> >>> ''backwards''?)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
> >> match the step in the feature.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is
risky as
> >>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
> >> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should
probably
> >> be made collaboratively.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks very much,
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rspec-users mailing list
> >>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081218/817058cc/attachment.html>

What about two steps with the same regex but are of different types -- i.e.
a Given and a Then with the same regexp?
Steve

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Great information guys, making some progress on this end. It is much
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Discovered that step definitions can not be duplicated even across
>> step files. Is this correct?
>>
>
> Regexen can not be the same (even if the blocks are different). I just
> refactored the wiki a little and added a new page about this:
> http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/wikis/step-definitions
>
> Aslak
>
>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Joseph Wilk <josephwilk at
joesniff.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > David Chelimsky wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Guys,
>> >>>
>> >>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting
better at
>> >>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>> >>>
>> >>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or
confirmation, if
>> >>> someone has a minute or two...
>> >>>
>> >>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the given-when-then
page and just seek
>> >>> confirmation:
>> >>>
>> >>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords
"given", "then" and
>> >>> "when" (as well as "and" and
"but), correct? These are simply naming
>> >>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
>> >>> but have no real physical relationship, they''re
just tags that denote
>> >>> the steps.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching
step but nothing is
>> >>> implemented.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >>
>> >
>> > In the latest version in Github (0.1.13) you can also force steps
which
>> have
>> > an implementation to the pending state using the
''pending'' method which
>> > works in the same way as Rspec''s pending.
>> >
>> > When "I want to be lazy" do
>> >  pending "Implement me!"
>> > end
>> >
>> > --
>> > Joseph Wilk
>> > http://blog.josephwilk.net
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched,
has some code and
>> >>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Or raise an error.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found
that matched the
>> >>> feature.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was
either
>> >> pending or failed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in
the step
>> >>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that
matches
>> >>> (really don''t know how this works, will a test
sequence ever go
>> >>> ''backwards''?)
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that
could
>> >> match the step in the feature.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is
risky as
>> >>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the step
won''t be found.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
>> >> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should
probably
>> >> be made collaboratively.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks very much,
>> >>>
>> >>> Tim
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> rspec-users mailing list
>> >>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rspec-users mailing list
>> >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081217/d4f2283f/attachment.html>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Steve Molitor <stevemolitor at gmail.com>
wrote:
> What about two steps with the same regex but are of different types -- i.e.
> a Given and a Then with the same regexp?
They do the exact same thing. Given|When|Then is just a nicety for you
as the developer. Cucumber could care less. This is the code from
Cucumber:

    def Given(key, &proc)
      step_mother.register_step_proc(key, &proc)
    end

    def When(key, &proc)
      step_mother.register_step_proc(key, &proc)
    end

    def Then(key, &proc)
      step_mother.register_step_proc(key, &proc)
    end
> Steve
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Great information guys, making some progress on this end. It is
much
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> Discovered that step definitions can not be duplicated even across
>>> step files. Is this correct?
>>
>> Regexen can not be the same (even if the blocks are different). I just
>> refactored the wiki a little and added a new page about this:
>> http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/wikis/step-definitions
>>
>> Aslak
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Joseph Wilk <josephwilk at
joesniff.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> > David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim
at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Guys,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting
better at
>>> >>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or
confirmation, if
>>> >>> someone has a minute or two...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> FWIW - I''ve read the wiki and the
given-when-then page and just seek
>>> >>> confirmation:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords
"given", "then" and
>>> >>> "when" (as well as "and" and
"but), correct? These are simply naming
>>> >>> conventions that denote the well known
"Build/Operate/Check" pattern
>>> >>> but have no real physical relationship,
they''re just tags that denote
>>> >>> the steps.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Correct.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A "pending" step is any step that has a
matching step but nothing is
>>> >>> implemented.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Correct.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > In the latest version in Github (0.1.13) you can also force
steps which
>>> > have
>>> > an implementation to the pending state using the
''pending'' method which
>>> > works in the same way as Rspec''s pending.
>>> >
>>> > When "I want to be lazy" do
>>> >  pending "Implement me!"
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Joseph Wilk
>>> > http://blog.josephwilk.net
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A "successful" step is any step that is
matched, has some code and
>>> >>> doesn''t assert anything resolving to false.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Or raise an error.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were
found that matched the
>>> >>> feature.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was
either
>>> >> pending or failed.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You need to be careful that features do not match
steps in the step
>>> >>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds
that matches
>>> >>> (really don''t know how this works, will a
test sequence ever go
>>> >>> ''backwards''?)
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions
that could
>>> >> match the step in the feature.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file
is risky as
>>> >>> it''s very easy to create a mismatch and the
step won''t be found.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
>>> >> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they
should probably
>>> >> be made collaboratively.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks very much,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Tim
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> >>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> rspec-users mailing list
>>> >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > rspec-users mailing list
>>> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com