[rspec-devel] Stories vs. examples

aslak hellesoy aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 16:25:27 EST 2007


On Nov 6, 2007 7:39 PM, Alvin Schur <a.schur at nucleus.com> wrote:
> Are stories intended to mean "it worked in one case" to indicate a
> feature is present instead of being an exhaustive description of how
> edge cases are handled?
>

Ideally, yes. You'll typically have one scenario for each edge case. A
story has many scenarios (which again have many steps - G/W/T)

Aslak

> Are stories supposed to be comprehensive enough to pass a rigorous
> "heckling"?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alvin.
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:43:23 +0000
> > From: "Dan North" <tastapod at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [rspec-devel] Stories vs. examples
> > To: rspec-devel <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>
> > Message-ID:
> >       <d559d8430711060543g5d8954fbu157afcc177e847a1 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> >
> > Hi Ian.
> >
> > I find it helps to think about the audience for your documentation. (It is
> > documentation after all, it just happens to run, which is rather nice.)
> >
> > For the specs, the audience is developers. They want to know what an object
> > of a particular type - or more specifically in a particular role - does,
> > which other objects it interacts with and why. This audience wants to see
> > progress without leaving their IDE or editor, which is why we put effort
> > into making TextMate plugins and why we want to play nice with all the
> > Test::Unit runners.
> >
> > For the stories, the audience is testers, analysts and ultimately the
> > various stakeholders who are requesting the features. They want to know what
> > the system does and how to interact with it to get work done. They don't
> > really care what happens under the hood. Typically they are non-technical
> > (or less technical than developers) which is why we think there is so much
> > value in making their documentation look like documentation - just plain
> > words on a page. Even better, if you can give them green words on a page
> > when the feature is implemented and working, or red words on a page when the
> > feature isn't working, or grey words for unimplemented features, they can
> > see progress in a living document. Now make that document editable, like a
> > regular document, and you are well on your way to acceptance testing
> > Nirvana.
> >
> > So the process (described as "outside in" as opposed to "top down" or
> > "bottom up") starts by expressing a feature request as a story, driving out
> > the scenarios that define "done" for that story and automating the steps
> > that make up the scenarios. Then you use code-level examples to drive
> > inwards (that word "drive" again) from the outermost objects that the steps
> > identified. All the time you want to implement just enough behaviour to get
> > the steps to work, to drive the scenarios. Then you're done and you go to
> > the pub for a well-earned drink. Hence "beer-driven development".
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> > Dan
> >
> > On 11/6/07, Ian Dees <undees at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, all.
> >>
> >> I'm posting a philosophical question here, rather than cluttering up
> >> the tracker for the patch where it originated.
> >>
> >> Quoth David, in response to some fuzzy thinking on my part:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Stories are not just another way to express examples - they're a
> >>>
> >> completely different animal.
> >>
> >> The offending clause of mine: "stories are another way to write your
> >> tests.... examples are meant for small, targeted descriptions of your
> >> code's behavior... stories are suited to longer, more detailed
> >> narratives."
> >>
> >> The intent wasn't to say that stories are a different syntax for
> >> examples; it was that stories and examples are two different syntaxes
> >> for two different test-writing purposes.  But now I'm wondering if I
> >> even have _that_ right.
> >>
> >> In Rails-land, the distinction is much clearer: you typically see
> >> examples for testing code, and stories for testing applications (in
> >> the blog posts I've read, anyway).
> >>
> >> But in GUI-land, the picture blurs a great deal: you're always testing
> >> applications, but sometimes you're giving a tiny example of how one
> >> feature works, and at other times you're writing a story about several
> >> steps of an interaction between the customer and the UI.
> >>
> >> Anyone want to jump into these muddy waters?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-devel mailing list
> >> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list