rspec users - May 2009 - [Cucumber] Fail a scenario from After or AfterStep

I''m trying to make sure that my cucumber selenium suite fails if my  
Rails app returns any 500 response codes. I''m working on what the best
way to identify this state, but the question I''d like to put to the  
list is this: If I want to check for this error condition in an After  
or AfterStep, how can I force a failure in the scenario?

i.e. something like the following non-functional snippet:

AfterStep do |scenario|
   if foo_error_state_detected?
     scenario.fail("A foo failure has been detected.")
   end
end

Ideas?

TIA,
Luke
--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

On 15 May 2009, at 07:01, Luke Melia wrote:
> I''m trying to make sure that my cucumber selenium suite fails if
my
> Rails app returns any 500 response codes. I''m working on what the
> best way to identify this state, but the question I''d like to put
to
> the list is this: If I want to check for this error condition in an  
> After or AfterStep, how can I force a failure in the scenario?
>
> i.e. something like the following non-functional snippet:
>
> AfterStep do |scenario|
>  if foo_error_state_detected?
>    scenario.fail("A foo failure has been detected.")
>  end
> end
>
> Ideas?
+1 to this - I came up against exactly the same problem yesterday.

Matt Wynne
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com

> I''m trying to make sure that my cucumber selenium suite fails if
my Rails
> app returns any 500 response codes. I''m working on what the best
way to
> identify this state, but the question I''d like to put to the list
is this:
> If I want to check for this error condition in an After or AfterStep, how
> can I force a failure in the scenario?
>
To be honest, I don''t remember what happened to AfterStep. I think we
had it at some point, but can''t see it in the codebase. Did I remove
it? Or was that back in the pre-Cucumber days? Help me remember
here...
> i.e. something like the following non-functional snippet:
>
> AfterStep do |scenario|
> ?if foo_error_state_detected?
> ? ?scenario.fail("A foo failure has been detected.")
> ?end
> end
>
> Ideas?
>
I''m not so sure I like the idea of AfterStep - smells like a
workaround for something that belongs elsewhere. Can''t your have
selenium-rc (or a helper method you create around it) raise those
exceptions?

Given /bla/ do
  # don''t remember the API, but you get the idea
  @browser.goto_strict(''/bla'') # raises on 500 errors
end

Aslak
> TIA,
> Luke
> --
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On May 15, 2009, at 4:25 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> To be honest, I don''t remember what happened to AfterStep. I think
we
> had it at some point, but can''t see it in the codebase. Did I
remove
> it? Or was that back in the pre-Cucumber days? Help me remember
> here...
I''m not sure. I saw a reference for it on the wiki:
[http://wiki.github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/hooks
] and it seemed to fit this problem, but it''s not in the version of  
cucumber we''re running. I thought perhaps it was in trunk but it  
sounds like that''s not the case.
> I''m not so sure I like the idea of AfterStep - smells like a
> workaround for something that belongs elsewhere. Can''t your have
> selenium-rc (or a helper method you create around it) raise those
> exceptions?
>
> Given /bla/ do
>  # don''t remember the API, but you get the idea
>  @browser.goto_strict(''/bla'') # raises on 500 errors
> end
Yes, I''d prefer to be able to configure selenium-rc to fail on 500s.  
The problem I ran into is that selenium client doesn''t appear to be  
able to access the HTTP response code. In addition, ajax-y HTTP  
requests can get kicked off in our app by lots of different things (a  
click here, a mouseover there, etc).

In our suite today, of step matchers will usually fail if a 500 is  
raised, due to the user-facing impact (e.g. a div is not updated or a  
form does not appear), but it usually takes us a few minutes to  
realize that there was a 500 error raised (vs. incorrect javascript,  
etc.). I am hoping to short-circuit that investigation time and also  
catch the cases where a 500 is triggered and we don''t have a step  
matcher that fails.

The approach is a little smelly to me because it adds a little  
translucency to what is mostly black-box-testing, but I think it would  
be a net positive, at least for our app.

Cheers,
Luke
--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

> On May 15, 2009, at 4:25 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I don''t remember what happened to AfterStep. I
think we
>> had it at some point, but can''t see it in the codebase. Did I
remove
>> it? Or was that back in the pre-Cucumber days? Help me remember
>> here...
>
> I''m not sure. I saw a reference for it on the wiki:
> [http://wiki.github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/hooks] and it seemed to fit
> this problem, but it''s not in the version of cucumber
we''re running. I
> thought perhaps it was in trunk but it sounds like that''s not the
case.
>
>> I''m not so sure I like the idea of AfterStep - smells like a
>> workaround for something that belongs elsewhere. Can''t your
have
>> selenium-rc (or a helper method you create around it) raise those
>> exceptions?
>>
>> Given /bla/ do
>> ?# don''t remember the API, but you get the idea
>> ?@browser.goto_strict(''/bla'') # raises on 500 errors
>> end
>
> Yes, I''d prefer to be able to configure selenium-rc to fail on
500s. The
> problem I ran into is that selenium client doesn''t appear to be
able to
> access the HTTP response code. In addition, ajax-y HTTP requests can get
> kicked off in our app by lots of different things (a click here, a
mouseover
> there, etc).
>
> In our suite today, of step matchers will usually fail if a 500 is raised,
> due to the user-facing impact (e.g. a div is not updated or a form does not
> appear), but it usually takes us a few minutes to realize that there was a
> 500 error raised (vs. incorrect javascript, etc.). I am hoping to
> short-circuit that investigation time and also catch the cases where a 500
> is triggered and we don''t have a step matcher that fails.
>
Can you show me the code you would want to put in AfterStep that would
detect a 500 error?

Aslak
> The approach is a little smelly to me because it adds a little translucency
> to what is mostly black-box-testing, but I think it would be a net
positive,
> at least for our app.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
> --
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On May 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> Can you show me the code you would want to put in AfterStep that would
> detect a 500 error?
I''ve written a simple piece of rack middleware (included below) that  
will create a file in the event a 500 is raised. I would clear the  
file before each scenario and check for it''s existence in the  
AfterStep. For example:

Before do
   File.delete(''/tmp/rails.error'') if
File.exist?(''/tmp/rails.error'')
end

AfterStep do |scenario|
   if File.exist?(''/tmp/rails.error'')
     scenario.fail("Failed because app raised a 50x error.")
   end
end

Here''s the rack piece, for the curious:

class RackErrorTouch
   def initialize(app, options = {})
     @app = app
     @path = options[:path]
   end

   def call(env)
     rack_response = @app.call(env)
     if rack_response.first >= 500
       `touch #{@path}`
     end
     rack_response
   end
end
--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

> On May 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> Can you show me the code you would want to put in AfterStep that would
>> detect a 500 error?
>
> I''ve written a simple piece of rack middleware (included below)
that will
> create a file in the event a 500 is raised. I would clear the file before
> each scenario and check for it''s existence in the AfterStep. For
example:
>
Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you show me
an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
created?

Then I might be able to suggest an alternative solution with the same result.

Aslak
> Before do
> ?File.delete(''/tmp/rails.error'') if
File.exist?(''/tmp/rails.error'')
> end
>
> AfterStep do |scenario|
> ?if File.exist?(''/tmp/rails.error'')
> ? ?scenario.fail("Failed because app raised a 50x error.")
> ?end
> end
>
> Here''s the rack piece, for the curious:
>
> class RackErrorTouch
> ?def initialize(app, options = {})
> ? ?@app = app
> ? ?@path = options[:path]
> ?end
>
> ?def call(env)
> ? ?rack_response = @app.call(env)
> ? ?if rack_response.first >= 500
> ? ? ?`touch #{@path}`
> ? ?end
> ? ?rack_response
> ?end
> end
> --
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you show me
> an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
> created?
That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that  
causes an HTTP request to the app under test could result in a server  
error.

Ajax requests can be triggered by javascript, and in various parts of  
our app, they are triggered by clicking on links, submitting forms,  
dragging and dropping divs, hovering over a div, waiting for a page  
load to complete, as a callback from interacting with a 3rd party web  
service, or waiting for a setTimeout to execute.

So one way I could tackle it is to add a step to the end of every  
scenario that says "Then the application should not have issued any  
responses with 50x status codes", but that would be a) repetitive, and  
b) not fail until all steps had run, making it harder to track down  
the step in the test where the failure occurred.

One way to look at may be that I''m trying to enforce an invariant.  
Under no circumstances in my test suite is it appropriate for my app  
to raise a 50x error. In my Rails integration suite, webrat enforces  
this particular invariant for me, but can''t find a good hook in the  
selenium test stack to do this, which is why I''m looking at this route.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go with a solution  
in line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.

Cheers,
Luke

On May 15, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
> On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you show me
>> an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
>> created?
>
> That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that  
> causes an HTTP request to the app under test could result in a  
> server error.
>
> Ajax requests can be triggered by javascript, and in various parts  
> of our app, they are triggered by clicking on links, submitting  
> forms, dragging and dropping divs, hovering over a div, waiting for  
> a page load to complete, as a callback from interacting with a 3rd  
> party web service, or waiting for a setTimeout to execute.
>
> So one way I could tackle it is to add a step to the end of every  
> scenario that says "Then the application should not have issued any  
> responses with 50x status codes", but that would be a) repetitive,  
> and b) not fail until all steps had run, making it harder to track  
> down the step in the test where the failure occurred.
>
> One way to look at may be that I''m trying to enforce an invariant.
> Under no circumstances in my test suite is it appropriate for my app  
> to raise a 50x error. In my Rails integration suite, webrat enforces  
> this particular invariant for me, but can''t find a good hook in
the
> selenium test stack to do this, which is why I''m looking at this  
> route.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> --
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go with a
solution in
> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>
Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.

I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to
give a stab
at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
style we like...

Aslak
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On May 15, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you show
me
>>> an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
>>> created?
>>
>> That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that causes
an
>> HTTP request to the app under test could result in a server error.
>>
>> Ajax requests can be triggered by javascript, and in various parts of
our
>> app, they are triggered by clicking on links, submitting forms,
dragging and
>> dropping divs, hovering over a div, waiting for a page load to
complete, as
>> a callback from interacting with a 3rd party web service, or waiting
for a
>> setTimeout to execute.
>>
>> So one way I could tackle it is to add a step to the end of every
scenario
>> that says "Then the application should not have issued any
responses with
>> 50x status codes", but that would be a) repetitive, and b) not
fail until
>> all steps had run, making it harder to track down the step in the test
where
>> the failure occurred.
>>
>> One way to look at may be that I''m trying to enforce an
invariant. Under
>> no circumstances in my test suite is it appropriate for my app to raise
a
>> 50x error. In my Rails integration suite, webrat enforces this
particular
>> invariant for me, but can''t find a good hook in the selenium
test stack to
>> do this, which is why I''m looking at this route.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>>
>> --
>> Luke Melia
>> luke at lukemelia.com
>> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> --
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go with a  
>> solution in
>> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>
>
> Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
>
> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want
to give a stab
> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
> style we like...
Can I make a mild plea for After(:step) rather than AfterStep? I think  
it looks nicer and it''s one less method added to the API...

Matt Wynne
http://beta.songkick.com
http://blog.mattwynne.net

Luke Melia wrote:
> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go with a
solution
> in line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
Have you seen what Matt added recently?

https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/330-gracefully-handle-exceptions-in-after-block#ticket-330-11

I think this should cover your use case... WDYT?

-Ben
>
> On May 15, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you show
me
>>> an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
>>> created?
>>
>> That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that 
>> causes an HTTP request to the app under test could result in a server 
>> error.
>>
>> Ajax requests can be triggered by javascript, and in various parts of 
>> our app, they are triggered by clicking on links, submitting forms, 
>> dragging and dropping divs, hovering over a div, waiting for a page 
>> load to complete, as a callback from interacting with a 3rd party web 
>> service, or waiting for a setTimeout to execute.
>>
>> So one way I could tackle it is to add a step to the end of every 
>> scenario that says "Then the application should not have issued
any
>> responses with 50x status codes", but that would be a) repetitive,
>> and b) not fail until all steps had run, making it harder to track 
>> down the step in the test where the failure occurred.
>>
>> One way to look at may be that I''m trying to enforce an
invariant.
>> Under no circumstances in my test suite is it appropriate for my app 
>> to raise a 50x error. In my Rails integration suite, webrat enforces 
>> this particular invariant for me, but can''t find a good hook
in the
>> selenium test stack to do this, which is why I''m looking at
this route.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>>
>> -- 
>> Luke Melia
>> luke at lukemelia.com
>> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> -- 
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

On May 19, 2009, at 7:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want
to give a stab
> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
> style we like...
Sounds good. I''ll give it a whirl tonight.

Cheers,
Luke
>
> Aslak
>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>>
>> On May 15, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
>>
>>> On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you  
>>>> show me
>>>> an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
>>>> created?
>>>
>>> That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that  
>>> causes an
>>> HTTP request to the app under test could result in a server error.
>>>
>>> Ajax requests can be triggered by javascript, and in various parts
>>> of our
>>> app, they are triggered by clicking on links, submitting forms,  
>>> dragging and
>>> dropping divs, hovering over a div, waiting for a page load to  
>>> complete, as
>>> a callback from interacting with a 3rd party web service, or  
>>> waiting for a
>>> setTimeout to execute.
>>>
>>> So one way I could tackle it is to add a step to the end of every  
>>> scenario
>>> that says "Then the application should not have issued any  
>>> responses with
>>> 50x status codes", but that would be a) repetitive, and b) not
>>> fail until
>>> all steps had run, making it harder to track down the step in the  
>>> test where
>>> the failure occurred.
>>>
>>> One way to look at may be that I''m trying to enforce an
invariant.
>>> Under
>>> no circumstances in my test suite is it appropriate for my app to  
>>> raise a
>>> 50x error. In my Rails integration suite, webrat enforces this  
>>> particular
>>> invariant for me, but can''t find a good hook in the
selenium test
>>> stack to
>>> do this, which is why I''m looking at this route.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luke
>>>
>>> --
>>> Luke Melia
>>> luke at lukemelia.com
>>> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> --
>> Luke Melia
>> luke at lukemelia.com
>> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

Ben Mabey wrote:
> Luke Melia wrote:
>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go with a
solution
>> in line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>
> Have you seen what Matt added recently?
>
>
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/330-gracefully-handle-exceptions-in-after-block#ticket-330-11
>
>
> I think this should cover your use case... WDYT?
>
> -Ben
>
Never mind, I just reread the thread...  :)
>>
>> On May 15, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
>>
>>> On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you
show me
>>>> an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
>>>> created?
>>>
>>> That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that 
>>> causes an HTTP request to the app under test could result in a 
>>> server error.
>>>
>>> Ajax requests can be triggered by javascript, and in various parts 
>>> of our app, they are triggered by clicking on links, submitting 
>>> forms, dragging and dropping divs, hovering over a div, waiting for
>>> a page load to complete, as a callback from interacting with a 3rd 
>>> party web service, or waiting for a setTimeout to execute.
>>>
>>> So one way I could tackle it is to add a step to the end of every 
>>> scenario that says "Then the application should not have
issued any
>>> responses with 50x status codes", but that would be a)
repetitive,
>>> and b) not fail until all steps had run, making it harder to track 
>>> down the step in the test where the failure occurred.
>>>
>>> One way to look at may be that I''m trying to enforce an
invariant.
>>> Under no circumstances in my test suite is it appropriate for my
app
>>> to raise a 50x error. In my Rails integration suite, webrat
enforces
>>> this particular invariant for me, but can''t find a good
hook in the
>>> selenium test stack to do this, which is why I''m looking
at this route.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luke
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Luke Melia
>>> luke at lukemelia.com
>>> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> -- 
>> Luke Melia
>> luke at lukemelia.com
>> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 May 19, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
> On May 19, 2009, at 7:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do you
want to give a
>> stab
>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
>> style we like...
>
> Sounds good. I''ll give it a whirl tonight.
Here''s my first pass:

http://github.com/weplay/cucumber/commit/39601bc5eb6f0761dd7bedddc5484cdd895ca787

Not crazy about the way it tracks the current_scenario or the  
exception_fails_scenario parameter on Hook#execute_in. Unlike Before  
and After hooks, I think it''s preferable for AfterStep to fail the  
step than to call scenario.fail!

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Luke
--
Luke Melia
luke at lukemelia.com
http://www.lukemelia.com/

> On May 19, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 2009, at 7:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>>> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do
you want to give a stab
>>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
>>> style we like...
>>
>> Sounds good. I''ll give it a whirl tonight.
>
> Here''s my first pass:
>
>
http://github.com/weplay/cucumber/commit/39601bc5eb6f0761dd7bedddc5484cdd895ca787
>
> Not crazy about the way it tracks the current_scenario or the
> exception_fails_scenario parameter on Hook#execute_in. Unlike Before and
> After hooks, I think it''s preferable for AfterStep to fail the
step than to
> call scenario.fail!
>
I agree - I''m not crazy about those small hacks you did, but
completely understand why you did it. I''d probably have done the same
myself. Some refactorings are needed in order to make this cleaner.
They are small enough hacks that I''ll pull it in :-)

Aslak
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
> --
> Luke Melia
> luke at lukemelia.com
> http://www.lukemelia.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

>
> On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go with
a solution in
>>> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
>>
>> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do you
want to give a stab
>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
>> style we like...
>
> Can I make a mild plea for After(:step) rather than AfterStep? I think it
> looks nicer and it''s one less method added to the API...
>
That would be confusing, since After already takes arguments (tags).

Aslak
> Matt Wynne
> http://beta.songkick.com
> http://blog.mattwynne.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 20 May 2009, at 09:33, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>> On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>>>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to go
with a
>>>> solution in
>>>> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
>>>
>>> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook. Do
you want to give a
>>> stab
>>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
>>> style we like...
>>
>> Can I make a mild plea for After(:step) rather than AfterStep? I  
>> think it
>> looks nicer and it''s one less method added to the API...
>>
>
> That would be confusing, since After already takes arguments (tags).
So why not make the API be like

After(:scenario_tagged => "@emails") { clean_up_emails }
After(:each_scenario) { clean_up_database } #the default
After(:step) { do_stuff_for_luke }

Having less methods makes the protocol more extensible, IMO.

Matt Wynne
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com

>
> On 20 May 2009, at 09:33, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I''d prefer to
go with a solution
>>>>> in
>>>>> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
>>>>
>>>> I''m convinced. We''ll add an AfterStep hook.
Do you want to give a stab
>>>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>>>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of
the
>>>> style we like...
>>>
>>> Can I make a mild plea for After(:step) rather than AfterStep? I
think it
>>> looks nicer and it''s one less method added to the API...
>>>
>>
>> That would be confusing, since After already takes arguments (tags).
>
> So why not make the API be like
>
> After(:scenario_tagged => "@emails") { clean_up_emails }
> After(:each_scenario) { clean_up_database } #the default
> After(:step) { do_stuff_for_luke }
>
> Having less methods makes the protocol more extensible, IMO.
>
What you suggest would break backwards compatibility.
I actually think that one method makes the protocol *less* extensible,
since there will always be compatibility issues.

Besides, I actually think Before(*tags), After(*tags) and
AfterStep(*tags) is more readable.
In any case, you don''t have to write this a lot, only a couple of
times per project.

So we''ll stick with the current API

Aslak
> Matt Wynne
> http://blog.mattwynne.net
> http://www.songkick.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>