[rspec-devel] Game of Life questions

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/28/07, Ian Dees <undees at gmail.com> wrote:
> What a coincidence!  It was this very morning that I took the plunge
> and switched from my stock 1.0.8 install to a gem built from Dan's
> branch, and I had some of the exact same questions.

That's merged into trunk now, so feel free to work from there.

> > > > > 1) It was hard to figure out how to run the game of life example.
> > > > > First I looked for a Rake task and found none. Then I looked for
> > > > > instructions in a README and found none.
>
> I stumbled here, too, trying to figure out how to run my own story
> file.  I spent a little while playing with spec's -U option and
> StoryRunner before realizing that the right way is just to use plain
> ol' ruby and require 'spec/story' in my story file.
>
> > > > This is all stuff we need to do, but keep in mind this is not a release yet.
>
> Want me to take a first stab at a really short README for the RBehave
> examples?  (Finally, something I might be semi-qualified to do for the
> story effort!  ;-)

Let's get this part of the lingo straight: we're talking about the
Story Runner, not RBehave (even though it's the story runner from
RBehave).

By all means, please do up some docs. Thanks!

>
> > > > Agree. Given the discussions we've been having recently about bridging
> > > > the RSpec/Test::Unit gap, we should have a single command that can
> > > > field stories, specs and tests.
>
> As a RSpec user, I'd say either a "bin/spec" that runs stories without
> needing too many flags/options, or a separate "bin/story" would feel
> fine.

How about bin/behave that knows how to deal w/ everything spec does
already PLUS stories. So, given:

project/lib
project/behaviour/stories
project/behaviour/not_stories ('objects' may be the wrong name here -
we need something that means 'everything else besides stories')

>behave behaviour
=> runs everything
>behave behaviour/stories
=> runs stories
>behave behaviour/not_stories (or objects, specs, examples, etc)
=> runs object-level examples

>
> > > > project/behaviour/objects
> > > > project/behaviour/stories
>
> So if I understand correctly, "objects" is the catch-all for things
> that aren't models, views, or controllers.

No, no, no. Little be it known there IS a world of ruby outside rails.
'objects' is everything besides stories. We just need a good name for
it.

> What about for non-Rails
> apps?  When I have my GUI testing hat on, "stories" and "examples"
> seem clearer than "stories" and "objects."

I agree that 'objects' is the wrong name, but 'examples' doesn't
really work either when sitting next to 'stories' because Stories are
Examples too. So what are the examples examples of? I'm not saying I
have a better name - I'm really struggling w/ this - but we need to
land on a name that makes sense alongside 'stories'.

Cheers,
David

>
> --Ian
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>