rspec users - Apr 2008 - Creating stories for the second resource. Very wet approach

Hi y''all

I''m about to start writing up the stories for my second resource.  The
second resource is so similar to the first that I feel a good way for me to
start might be to copy and paste the stories and edit from there.  This
seems very anti-dry though.  Am I missing something obvious, or would you
expect (and be happy with) a lot of duplication between stories?

Tim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080411/402af3e0/attachment.html

Hello,

I''ve come across a similar problem. Sharing the steps is the easy bit. 
And I''ve started to create a ''useful_steps.rb'' for
storing very common
steps.

I have just copy and pasted the plain text stories before but since they 
use the same steps, there was little new steps to write.

It feels like the steps are where you want to keep it dry but the 
stories are the domain specific language to writing 
acceptance/integration tests.

So it is similar problem to saying that models contain lots of 
''has_ones'' and hence are not dry.

Well thats the conclusions I''ve been coming to after using stories for
a
while.

--
Joseph Wilk
http://www.joesniff.co.uk



Tim Haines wrote:
> Hi y''all
> 
> I''m about to start writing up the stories for my second resource. 
The
> second resource is so similar to the first that I feel a good way for me 
> to
> start might be to copy and paste the stories and edit from there.  This
> seems very anti-dry though.  Am I missing something obvious, or would 
> you
> expect (and be happy with) a lot of duplication between stories?
> 
> Tim.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On 17 apr 2008, at 15:44, Joseph Wilk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I''ve come across a similar problem. Sharing the steps is the easy
bit.
> And I''ve started to create a ''useful_steps.rb''
for storing very common
> steps.
So have I. I use a lot of "Given a number of flurps in the system",  
and "When I add a new zoink", most as as refactored and abstracted as
possible in common_steps.rb. Also, a form_steps.rb for common webrat  
steps.
> I have just copy and pasted the plain text stories before but since  
> they
> use the same steps, there was little new steps to write.
..which isn''t wrong per se imho. Steps for removing, and editing a  
post all start from the same initial state, "Given an existing post".
> It feels like the steps are where you want to keep it dry but the
> stories are the domain specific language to writing
> acceptance/integration tests.
Exactly. Stories may share steps, but the overal flow is always  
different. If not, your stories aren''t 100% accurate.
> So it is similar problem to saying that models contain lots of
> ''has_ones'' and hence are not dry.
Nice analogy :)

gr,
bartz
> Well thats the conclusions I''ve been coming to after using stories
> for a
> while.
>
> --
> Joseph Wilk
> http://www.joesniff.co.uk
>
>
>
> Tim Haines wrote:
>> Hi y''all
>>
>> I''m about to start writing up the stories for my second
resource.
>> The
>> second resource is so similar to the first that I feel a good way  
>> for me
>> to
>> start might be to copy and paste the stories and edit from there.   
>> This
>> seems very anti-dry though.  Am I missing something obvious, or would
>> you
>> expect (and be happy with) a lot of duplication between stories?
>>
>> Tim.
>
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users