[rspec-users] Spec'ing via features

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Wed Nov 26 00:15:25 EST 2008


On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Tim Walker <walketim at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since Cucumber is about BDD and defining the "acceptable and desired
> behavior" of the software through plain english (executable
> requirements if you will) it is not always clear what "level" the
> steps will implement.
>
> In the case of Rails testing out of the box this maps roughly to:
> 1) unit tests - models
> 2) functional tests - controllers
> 3) integration tests - multiple controllers/models
>
> In Cucumber we're not really drawing those lines so clearly and tests
> will draw on some or more of each of these levels.
>
> Is this accurate?

The general recommendation is that Cucumber replaces rails integration
tests and RSpec replaces rails functional and unit tests.

HTH,
David

>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> James Byrne <lists at ruby-forum.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ben Mabey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right.  Although, I'm unsure if rspec is even the default framework
>>>> outside of the rails generators.
>>>> -Ben
>>>
>>> Where can one get a handy quick reference of what syntax is acceptable
>>> to cucumber by default?
>>
>> <cheeky>Ruby syntax is acceptable</cheeky>
>>
>> Pat
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list