[rspec-users] Are you writing "imperative" or "declarative" scenarios in your stories?
ben at benmabey.com
Mon May 12 19:06:21 EDT 2008
Kyle Hargraves wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious what everyone else on this list has been doing in this regard.
>> Are you writing declarative scenarios all the time? Or are you reusing a
>> lot of your steps with detailed scenarios? A little bit of both maybe? If
>> so, how do you decide which type of scenario to use in a given case? Any
>> other thoughts on this matter?
> When I first started writing stories for rails apps, I primarily used
> the declarative form, just because they were easier to implement and
> reusing steps was generally difficult anyhow. It was just the natural
> style that I'd hit upon when writing them for small projects I used to
> play with rbehave / the story runner.
> Once webrat came about, I moved toward the imperative form, with a lot
> of steps that were just english forms of the webrat helpers ("When I
> click the link ...", "When I select Foo from the Bar menu", etc). This
> was really nice, since I was able to write a number of scenarios
> almost entirely without implementing any steps. Mix in some
> GivenScenario and you could get fairly detailed paths through the
> application with minimal effort.
> But then, I'd come back to a story and have to, god forbid, think
> about what the meaning was. The story description and scenario name
> will hint at it, but the meat was tough to pick out of the steps. Too
> many times, I'd had to sit down with a coworker while we figured out,
> "why did we write this?"
> So for the past few months I've come full circle, and I prefer short,
> high-level scenarios that describe the *feature*, not the particular
> way it might be performed within the current interface. I don't get to
> reuse steps as often, but with a few helper methods mixed into
> Spec::Story::World, it hasn't been an issue. The scenarios themselves
> are terse and get right to the point.
Good point. So, do you just define all your helpers in your helper.rb
file or do you monkey patch it in each of the step files?
> It has made a *big* difference in how useful my stories are as
> documentation, and maintenance is significantly easier when the UI is
> tweaked. It hasn't really affected my level of confidence in them
> serving as tests -- it either fails or it doesn't -- but the other
> wins have been worth it.
> That said, some of my scenarios, especially when first tinkering on a
> new feature, still read like a howto manual for a web browser. "Click
> this button", "Type XYZ in this field", etc. One or two of those don't
> bother me, but I move on to more abstract language -- Bryan's "When I
> add Zed Shaw" -- once it's solid enough to elide the details.
> Sometimes I go back and edit the initial scenarios, sometimes I don't.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
Thanks for sharing your experience. In your case have you had a
customer help writing the scenarios or are you creating them yourself?
More information about the rspec-users