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.
Thanks again, Tim On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Tim Walker <walke...@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 >> confirmation: >> >> 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. > > Correct. > >> A "pending" step is any step that has a matching step but nothing is >> implemented. > > Correct. > >> 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 >> 'backwards'?) > > 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, >> >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
