On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Tim Walker <walke...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Again, cucumber looks at all of the steps and throws an error if more than one will match your step. So order should not be an issue. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
