[rspec-users] Cucumber - Ambiguous steps

aslak hellesoy aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 09:34:00 EDT 2008


On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, aslak hellesoy
>> <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Joseph Wilk <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>>>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <lists at ruby-forum.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> You can still use non-regular expression steps in Cucumber:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been unable to think of a good example where I would want only a
>>>>>> partial match of a step. Throwing away the unmatched characters. Does
>>>>>> anyone have good examples where they would?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you've got this right and exposed a bug. Wanna report it to
>>>>> lighthouse and/or fix it?
>>>>
>>>> Sure I'll report it and write a patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hold on.
>>>
>>> If you want the regexp to match until the end of the string, why don't
>>> you just stick a $ at the end of the Regexp?
>>>
>>> That's how regexen work. I don't see why they should work any
>>> differently when used in Cucumber.
>>
>> My previous comments withdrawn. I agree with Aslak.
>
> Although, I can see why one might be confused by this. I was. Even
> though these are regular expressions, the context led me to an
> (erroneous, but intuitive) expectation that in the presence of these
> two ...
>
>  /this and "(.*)"/
>  /this and "(.*)" and the other thing/
>
> ... that the first would not match "this and that and the other thing"
>
> Perhaps a hint in the error message is in order?
>
>    When this and "that" and the other thing
>      Ambiguous step resolution for "this and \"that\" and the other thing":
>
>      ./features//foo-steps.rb:4:in `/this and "(.*)" and the other thing/'
>      ./features//foo-steps.rb:1:in `/this and "(.*)"/' (Cucumber::Ambiguous)
>
>      Consider ending the shorter expression with a $
>
> WDYT?
>

I like this much better. -Guiding people to use regexen properly is
better than redefining their semantics.

Feel free to add it.

Aslak

>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Aslak
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joseph Wilk
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> David
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list