[rspec-users] Test for a gem/plugin?

James Byrne lists at ruby-forum.com
Thu Dec 11 10:19:59 EST 2008


Ashley Moran wrote:

> 
> Then you already have the name to verify if you want to display a
> personalised message.  (On the other hand, putting too much data in
> the steps gets cumbersome; I tend to write them more like this:
> 
>    Scenario: A known user signs in successfully
>      Given I am a registered user
>      When I sign on with the correct credentials
>      Then I should see a sign in success message
> 
> Even if internally I call out to steps more like the ones you wrote as
> examples.  Hope that doesn't muddy the waters though.

I believe that I am gaining some insight into how this is all meant to 
pull together.   One of the difficulties I face is that different people 
evidently have significantly different philosophies about how and what 
to test (surprise, surprise, surprise!).  As I am coming at this from 
the pov of someone who has had no prior experience with this approach, 
and whose training in it to date has been entirely theoretical in 
nature, I find this somewhat confusing.  At the moment I tend to see 
cucumber features as my sole method of testing, an approach that I 
realize is not favoured by many.

I began learning cucumber by writing a set of fairly low level 
functional tests following the template generated by cucumber.  Now, 
based on the advice I have received here, I am trying a much smaller 
scale approach and generating a few very high level features.  However, 
in the back of my mind I still consider that eventually I will specify 
much of the implementation detail, model attributes, data normalization 
routines, input limits, and so forth as feature steps somewhere. 
Experience will eventually teach me whether that approach is sustainable 
or not.

I presently have in mind two distinct types of tests/features that I 
wish to represent.  The first is the end user type of feature writing 
which conforms generally to the analysis of system requirements.  The 
second set of features will be more like functional tests, that exercise 
the implementation details.

My expression of the second type of features, the functional tests, are 
probably what is generating the greatest controversy.  Some 
practitioners evidently see BDD features more or less as a pure 
analytical tool.  They expect that functional and unit tests will be 
conducted mostly in a "traditional" manner, via test unit or rspec or 
similar testing framework.  With this approach there is no need, or 
desire, that features elaborate great detail regarding implementation 
since that is done elsewhere.

The dichotomy between feature steps and step definitions is another 
point of confusion for me.  Take your reference to "if internally I call 
out to steps more like the ones you wrote."  Does this refer to feature 
"Steps" or to step definition "Steps".  I suspect the latter.  In that 
case one can imagine that step definitions become rather more elaborate 
structures.  Some step definitions perhaps even assume the appearance 
and role of rspec specs and have only a remotely dependent relationship 
to any feature step.

It is in these obscure details that much of my confusion arises. 
Perhaps I have inferred your meaning correctly, perhaps I have totally 
misunderstood it.  Regardless of which is true, doubt remains.



-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.


More information about the rspec-users mailing list