I guess that would work. But a method would probably work too, if I'm
understanding correctly (often a bad assumption!). I.e. /"(.*)" should be
a valid date/ would call valid_date?(date), or something. Anyway, yes that
sounds promising.
Steve
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Pat Maddox <perg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another idea I had is to potentially introduce a ValidatedDate class,
> and then your "should be a valid date" step checks that the field is
> an instance of ValidatedDate. That has the affect of ensuring that
> people use your validation code in those spots where you want them to.
> How does that sound?
>
> Pat
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Steve Molitor <stevemoli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Yeah I thought of something like that. Actually we do something like
> that
> > in one step now that I think about it. But I really wanted to execute
> the
> > same exact date feature (for example) doc that the user verified to make
> > sure nothing got lost in translation. Which I could do if I
> > programmatically ran the date feature file inside the Given /(.*) date is
> > vaild/ step. But all those results would clutter up the report output.
> I
> > like your approach best: simple and doesn't require a funky technical
> > solution.
> > Steve
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Pat Maddox <perg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From a testing perspective it would be nice if cucumber could actually
> >> > run
> >> > the date validation feature everywhere it applies.
> >>
> >> Sure, and you can have a step like
> >>
> >> Given birth date is valid
> >>
> >> Given /(.*) date is valid/ do |field|
> >> TestData.valid_dates.each do |date|
> >> @it.send "#{field}_date=", date
> >> @it.should be_valid
> >> end
> >>
> >> TestData.invalid_dates.each do |date|
> >> @it.send "#{field}_date=", date
> >> @it.should_not be_valid
> >> end
> >> end
> >>
> >> That gets you technical validation everywhere you need it. Then you
> >> have another individual feature file that describes date formats.
> >>
> >>
> >> > P.S. Date validation really isn't that important in my application;
> >> > that's
> >> > just an example. A real example would be the sales tax calculation in
> >> > the
> >> > leasing app I worked on. That was very important, it was a global
> >> > requirement with some important exceptions. But I think your approach
> >> > would
> >> > have worked there as well.
> >>
> >> Same ideas apply.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >> p.s. I didn't realize you were also the author of the other thread I
> >> linked to :)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
