[rspec-users] Spec'ing via features
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.
> 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.
>>> Where can one get a handy quick reference of what syntax is acceptable
>>> to cucumber by default?
>> <cheeky>Ruby syntax is acceptable</cheeky>
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users