[rspec-devel] Story Directory Structure
tastapod at gmail.com
Fri Nov 9 11:02:30 EST 2007
The rule I use is don't automate what you can't do manually. In other words,
wait until you've done enough creating and structuring stories, steps, etc.
for it to be annoying you, and then automate it :)
fwiw I've used the same structure (having scenarios and steps directories
inside a stories directory) and I really like it.
The all.rb vs finding stories argument is an interesting one. Should your
stories have to opt in to being run ( all.rb) or should any story just get
One model I've seen work really well is to have two story folders, one for
in-progress stories and one for finished stories. If any stories in the done
folder fail, it breaks your build, and if any stories in the in-progress
folder *pass* it also breaks your build (because you probably ought to know
about it). With this model, you would run all the stories all the time so
you wouldn't need an all.rb file.
On Nov 8, 2007 9:40 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2007 3:38 PM, Josh Knowles <joshknowles at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/8/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > There IS a rake task:
> > >
> > > rake stories
> > >
> > $ rake -T | grep stories
> > $
> > I must be missing something as I don't see the rake task described
> LOL - there is in MY project - just not in the plugin! (sorry to lead
> you astray)
> I think it's best left that way for the time being.
> > > However, I don't think we have enough experience/convention to know
> > > what that rake task should do - right now I get to define whatever I
> > > want in all.rb. Simpler that way, in my view.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > Makes sense. This allows folks to structure their stories however
> they'd like.
> Yes - which for the near term is a GOOD THING.
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-devel