similar to: Role of stories vs specs

A couple months ago I asked how stories and specs might impact each other. [1] If you look at Dan North''s example of what''s in a story [2], and you imagine using the spec framework to drive the design, you can probably imagine a significant bit of overlap in the two. Is that a bad thing? I''m not sure. It has made me a bit uncomfortable though, and I''ve

I''d like to start gathering information/debating on the advantages/disadvantages of using it "should ..." vs other techniques. Dan North explained why we should use should: http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd/ I used to use it "should ..." for the projects I was on, until I was challenged by a fellow developer who started using it with an active voice. For example

Thanks to discussions on this list, suggestions from many of you and a patch from Pat Maddox, we now have Plain Text User Stories in Story Runner. Read more: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/10/21/story-runner-in-plain-english Cheers, David

hypothetical question for all you BDD experts: I want to make sure that a :list action always returns widgets in alphabetical order. There''s at least 2 ways of doing this: it "should fetch items in alphabetical order" do Widget.should_receive(:find).with(:order => "name ASC") get :list end it "should fetch items in alphabetical order" do [:red,

I really would like to know how people are using the Story and Example runner to write their software.It would be great to get some direction on it, because I think I''m missing some points. Taking the outside-in approach in thought: At first we write a high-level customer-facing story, this story fails. Then we start using mocks at object level to use them as a design tool, and so we

I think we all know that the readability of steps isn''t great right now, and in fact there''s a very recent thread that discusses just that. It was that recent thread that prompted me to explore this a bit. The basic idea is that you define step matchers, which have a regex, and then you match step names against that regex. Kind of tough for me to explain so I''ll just

Just started looking at the Story Runner integration, and am converting a few Rails integration tests to get a feel for it. My integration tests relied on fixtures, and since my models have a significant amount of validation (and hence need valid data unless I save without validation), this has made setup easy. With stories however, I''m wondering what the recommended approach is.

Hey list, I''m refactoring some much-used functionality into a common_steps step group. Methods like this are in there: steps_for :common do Given "a number of existing $types?" do |type| @initial_item_count = type.singularize.classify.constantize.count end When "the user adds an invalid $type" do |type| post

Hi, I''m posting this stack trace again because it keeps popping up, seemingly as the ''default error'' when something is wrong with my story code; for instance, I got it when I referenced a variable in my ''Given'' that I had forgotten to pass into the block. Now I''m getting it when I attempt to post to a login action: And ''user is

As I work with Rails TestUnit tests I am reconsidering how to use cucumber features. It seems to me that it might be best to have a coherent view of how to arrange my test suites before I get much further into this. Now, so far I have considered three possibilities: 1. Use features exclusively. Create a feature file for each model, one for each controller and possibly an additional one for

rspec_resource_generator ======================== By Pat Maddox Use this generator to generate RESTful scaffolding with RSpec specifications. Syntax is exactly the same as the scaffold_resource generator: ./script/generate rspec_resource ModelName [field:type field:type] When you run this generator, it will create a migration, model, and model spec file. In addition, it gives you a RESTful

Here''s a controller spec I wrote, it''s for a very simple RESTful controller (well, aren''t all RESTful controllers simple? :) I''ve created a couple spec helper methods to refactor some of the common code...for example, require_login_and_correct_user creates two specifications: one for when the user isn''t logged in, and one when the user is logged in but

Hi, I''m trying to get up and running with StoryRunner. I have a story that looks something like the following, but the call to mock_model produces the exception listed below. Am I just misunderstanding the concept? Are mocks not meant to be used in stories like this? Or is this a bug? Changing @user to be an actual AR object makes things run without error. ENV["RAILS_ENV"] =

Do RSpec stories make view specs redundant? Does anybody spec their views *and* use stories, and if so how? Any views (no pun intended) appreciated. ~ Thanks Mark -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

HI, After I upgraded to RSpec 1.1.4 (from git), my stories all failed. I was using Webrat and the first thing I noticed was the ''visits'' method was gone. I then backtracked to just using ''get'' and got the same undefined method exception. I confirmed it was still working in 1.1.3 Eventually, I got it to work doing this: in my first Given: @app =

OK, so i''ve played a bit with mocks and mock_models in controller and view tests and i have a question. Is this statement really correct: "We highly recommend that you exploit the mock framework here rather than providing real model objects in order to keep the view specs isolated from changes to your models." (http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html

Hi all, I''ve been thinking about the whole validator/relationship speccing issue, and I came up with a suggestion, which I''d love to get some feedback on. The full article is available at http://www.inter-sections.net/ 2007/10/19/what-to-test-and-specify-and-where-to-do-it/ , with the relevant bit being about halfway down, but here''s the gist of it: 1.

Suppose we have a method ''foo'' which internally uses another method ''bar''. Being good BDDers we mock out the ''bar'' method. After all, we only want to spec the ''foo'' method - actually running the ''bar'' method means slower, less maintainable and brittler specs. That''s why we <3 mocking,

So I''d been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months, and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner. I''m running into a problem because I''ve got a couple rake tasks that reference "spec/rake/raketask". If I try to run "rake spec" then it pulls in the gem version instead of the plugin version. rake blows up saying that

Hi I hope this is not OT. I''m training my replacement at work to do BDD Rails development. He''s done a CS/maths degree but has no professional programming experience, so he''s never NOT done a project without BDD. In a way I am jealous of his unspoilt situation :) I''ve gone about things this way: * first teach him some Ruby (he did mainly Java at