[rspec-users] [Cucumber] a few clarifications please...
walketim at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 16:37:07 EST 2008
Thank you David. This helps a lot. Question, if there are matching
steps...will cucumber find the first matching step during execution? I
noticed a test executing at higher line numbers and then picking up a
step with a lower line number.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>> Things are working great with Cucumber and am getting better at
>> expressing requirements as behaviors. Kudos!
>> I seek a couple of points of clarification, or confirmation, if
>> someone has a minute or two...
>> FWIW - I've read the wiki and the given-when-then page and just seek
>> There is no dependency implied in the keywords "given", "then" and
>> "when" (as well as "and" and "but), correct? These are simply naming
>> conventions that denote the well known "Build/Operate/Check" pattern
>> but have no real physical relationship, they're just tags that denote
>> the steps.
>> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but nothing is
>> A "successful" step is any step that is matched, has some code and
>> doesn't assert anything resolving to false.
> Or raise an error.
>> A "gray" out step means that no steps were found that matched the feature.
> Blue? Means that a step was found, but a previous step was either
> pending or failed.
>> You need to be careful that features do not match steps in the step
>> file or cucumber will execute the first step it finds that matches
>> (really don't know how this works, will a test sequence ever go
> Cucumber tells you when it finds two steps definitions that could
> match the step in the feature.
>> Going back and changing the stuff in the .feature file is risky as
>> it's very easy to create a mismatch and the step won't be found.
> Not sure why that is risky, unless you mean that there are
> non-developers making these changes. If so, then they should probably
> be made collaboratively.
>> Thanks very much,
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users