On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM, aslak hellesoy > <aslak.helle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Being the author of Cucumber, some of you might be surprised that I ask > this > > question: > > > > How should I go about to implement a Cucumber feature and step definition > > with the following data? > > http://gist.github.com/99220 (just look at the first file for now) > > You left out: > > | Vegetarian | N | N | N | > > > > > Imagine I'm opening a restaurant where customers are asked for their > > religion. Based on what they answer, they will be presented with a > tailored > > menu. (Apologies in advance if I'm ignorant about what different people > it). > > > > In Cucumber, there are several ways to put this table in a feature. It > can > > be part of a table in a Scenario Outline's Examples section > > (http://wiki.github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/scenario-outlines), or it > can > > be sent to a Step as a multiline argument > > (http://wiki.github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/multiline-step-arguments > ). > > > > In either case, I'm not happy about the feature and step definitions I > end > > up with. The Scenario Outline version has annoying duplication. I have to > > duplicate each meat 3 times! This makes it hard to read and edit. The > > multiline step argument version isn't much better. If a menu for a > religion > > is wrong I'll only get one error, the error won't tell me what's wrong > > (unless I explicitly craft my error messages in the step definition) and > max > > one failure will show (there is only one scenario). > > > > There should be a better way to express this kind of tests. But I'm not > sure > > how. Is there a smarter way with the current Cucumber? If not, how would > you > > *like* to express this sort of problem? > > How about something like this: > > http://gist.github.com/99235 > This is actually one of the best I've seen so far. However it doesn't scale for multiple columns. (Imagine if you have 5 of them - they easily get mixed up, or you make a spelling mistake). I have also taken the meat+hamburge example and tweaked a little bit: http://gist.github.com/99620 As you can see I'm a little sceptical of complex tables. Instead I have invented the Range for feature writers. You specify a range of columns you want for a column hash. (This could work along with my example where you don't specify a range, just any token, and get the "rest"). > That doesn't require a new construct and I *think* it solves the > problem (obviously I haven't run it). > > An alternative would be to add a new rule or construct in which the > step definition can drive things a bit more. Something like > http://gist.github.com/99244 where the fact that the step def accepts > 3 block args would let it consume the next three columns in the table. > Not sure how crazy that would be - just an idea. > That's an interesting idea, but would't this introduce a positional dependency that could make it hard to detect mistakes? I'll have to think more about it. I love this discussion! More! More! Aslak > WDYT? > > > > > Cheers, > > Aslak > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
