On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Steve Molitor <stevemoli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lots of features use the word "should" in their then clauses. > Take this example from the 'Feature Introduction' of the cucumber wiki: > > Scenario: Buy last coffee > Given there are 1 coffees left in the machine > And I have deposited 1$ > When I press the coffee button > Then I should be served a coffee
Maybe I'm overly audacious, but I'd call that imprecise wording. A better clause would be "Then I am served a coffee." (Actually, that feature has more than one thing wrong with it. The "depositing $1" part really ought to be a When, not a Given, since it's an action integral to the scenario rather than a starting state. Unfortunately, this often happens when people make up theoretical examples instead of presenting real tests for real code. I'll be this feature was never actually part of designing a coffee machine...) > Should this be an rspec example instead? It certainly could be, but I don't > think an rspec example would communicate as well with the customer as the > feature would. And that's the primary goal here (as Pat and Matt have > reminded me!). I agree. This is a flawed feature, but it really ought to be a feature: it describes a stimulus (an action) and a response. But this example doesn't have much in common with your original e-mail validation example. In that case, what's the action and what's the response? And is a feature clearer to the customer to explain e-mail validation than a spec? -- Have Fun, Steve Eley (sfe...@gmail.com) ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine http://www.escapepod.org _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
