On 10/14/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/14/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think we all know that the readability of steps isn't great right > > > > now, and in fact there's a very recent thread that discusses just > > > > that. It was that recent thread that prompted me to explore this a > > > > bit. > > > > > > > > The basic idea is that you define step matchers, which have a regex, > > > > and then you match step names against that regex. Kind of tough for > > > > me to explain so I'll just link to some code :) > > > > > > > > spec: http://pastie.caboo.se/107116 > > > > impl: http://pastie.caboo.se/107117 > > > > > > > > Instead of writing > > > > Given "a user named __ who is __ years old", "Pat Maddox", 22 > > > > > > > > it allows you to write > > > > Given "a user named Pat Maddox who is 22 years old" > > > > > > > > I wrote it out as a separate matcher because it was just easiest to do > > > > it that way while I explored this approach, no messing around with > > > > RSpec internals to get it to really work. However if we went this > > > > route the structure would certainly be different. > > > > > > > > Hopefully you can get the idea from the example code. Ideally what I > > > > would like is to write step libraries that are external to the stories > > > > themselves. The stories would be much clearer because the > > > > implementation would not be embedded, and the step names themselves > > > > would make a lot more sense. > > > > > > > > wdyt? > > > > > > LOL - I just suggested something like this in the other thread you > > > cite. Though your idea strikes me as far more flexible and usable. > > > Well done!!!! > > > > This just occurs to me. If we do away with the need for special > > characters/positioning, blocks, etc, we should be able to do just > > this, no? > > > > Given a savings account with 100 dollars > > When the account owner asks for 101 dollars > > Then the account owner should receive 0 dollars > > Then the account should have 100 dollars > > > > Look mom - no quotes! > > How would you plan to implement this? Read in a text file, strip the > leading Given/When/Then and match each line? > > The one catch I see is that because stories are structured, you still > need something to demarcate steps within a scenario and scenarios > within a story. > > In general, I prefer your syntax, making it look like a plain-text > spec instead of Ruby code. I question whether it's a big enough win > to justify writing a parser instead of simply writing valid Ruby. At > this point, personally I'd say no, but I can see how it would be nice > for customers and spec readers/maintainers. > > Actually, would you mind showing an example of a full spec with this > syntax? Maybe something like: > > Story: Creating a post > As a user > I want post to my blog > So that I can share information with my fellow Rubyists > > Scenario: anonymous user > Given no blog posts in the system > > When I POST to /posts with title=Post Title, body=Post body > > Then the page should show Post title > And the page should show Post body > And the page should show Posted by: 'anonymous' > > Scenario: logged in user > Given no blog posts in the system > And a user named Pat > And logged in as Pat > > When I POST to /posts with title=Custom Title, body=Custom body > And the page should show Custom Title > And the page should show Custom body > And the page should show Posted by: 'Pat' > > Actually a parser for this would be quite simple, and I definitely > prefer it to the Ruby version. It makes sense to use the interpreter > when you're defining step implementations inline, but if you're not > then it doesn't really add any value and looks/feels weird. > > One other thing I thought of is that we can combine spec matchers with > your ? syntax idea. Basically, regexps don't really get you anything > in this type of situation, since you're going to be matching the whole > string, and regexp doesn't convert data types for you. You could > define a step like > > Step "I like to eat, eat, eat ? and ?" do |food1, food2| > @fav_foods ||= [food1, food2] > end > > and then when it gets used in the spec, it's simply > Given I like to eat, eat, eat apples and bananas > > Under the hood, the ? get converted to (.*), which again works fine > since you're matching the entire string exactly anyway. It's a lot > more readable than full-blown regexps. > > Pat >
Also, a 100% plain text spec makes it easier to implement something like Uses accounting vocabulary for importing step libraries without it looking or feeling like real code. That's another feature I want out of this, but I probably won't be needing it this week. Still it'll be nice to have at some point. Pat _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
