[rspec-users] Documentation for Plain-Text Stories
matt at mattwynne.net
Mon Aug 18 07:24:55 EDT 2008
I think it's better to make them separate. Conceptually, the story
runner slightly confuses the identity of what RSpec is - is it for
specifying behaviour of individual classes (a la TDD) or is it for
specifying the behaviour of the whole system? I think the describe /
it / should thing is powerful enough in its own right as a way to
express behaviour of individual classes. Coming from writing XUnit
tests I absolutely love it - it's such a natural way to describe the
Presumably you might also end up needing something like a Cucumber-
Rails plugin, or are you envisaging tying Cucumber to rails?
In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or
future employers of mine.
On 18 Aug 2008, at 12:11, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>
>>> The RSpec Story runner is likely to be deprecated in favour of
>>> the new
>>> feature runner (temporarily called Cucumber).
>> And this is going to be distributed as a separate plug-in from RSpec?
> For the time being it is in a separate Git repo. It can be built as a
> gem and installed as a gem. Rails users can also install it as a
> We haven't decided yet whether it will continue to be in a separate
> repo or added to the RSpec codebase. From a maintenance perspective I
> think it's easier to keep things separate and small than lump
> everything together in a big codebase. From a Rails user perspective
> it means you need to install 3 plugins instead of 2
> What do you think is the best thing to do?
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users