I have to agree with David. (It's in the contract ;)
Scenarios are reusable as steps in order to chain multiple scenarios
together (to describe the various coarse-grained stages of a workflow,
state machine or wizard, for example).
At an example level it is just confusing. I've noticed that i
David,
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:19 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
>> different from reused examples
>
> But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse.
>
> The
What you are defining is such a narrow use case I
> think it would be abused
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:30
> To:rspec-users
> Subjec
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
> different from reused examples
But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse.
The problem is that if I reuse an example, and then decide to change
that e
Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
different from reused examples
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you want to reuse stuff in your tests put those test methods in
> a separate module and include them into you specs
> Sent via BlackBerry
[rspec-users] given_it
>> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>>
>> it "should do #1" do
>> ...
>> end
>> it "should do X after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_x
>>
David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:30
To:rspec-users
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] given_it
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>
> it "should do #1
>> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>>
>> it "should do #1" do
>> ...
>> end
>> it "should do X after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_x
>> end
>> it "should do Y after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_y
>> end
>> it "should do
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>
> it "should do #1" do
> ...
> end
> it "should do X after #1" do
> given_it "should do #1"
> should do_x
> end
> it "should do Y after #1" do
> given_it "should do
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
it "should do #1" do
...
end
it "should do X after #1" do
given_it "should do #1"
should do_x
end
it "should do Y after #1" do
given_it "should do #1"
should do_y
end
it "should do Z after #1 Y" do
given_it "should do Y a
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
> or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
> (just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly, was
lazy to c
12 matches
Mail list logo
