This isn't in production, it's not even fully baked. It's just
something I hacked away at over a couple of weekends. I can show you
where I wanted to get to (off the top of my head) :
http://pastie.caboo.se/107693
( adapted from
http://evang.eli.st/blog/2007/9/1/user-stories-with-rspec-s-story-ru
On 10/16/07, Josh Chisholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all. I'm with David in that plain-text specs are my holy grail. I
> have actually been experimenting with this idea since I first saw the
> story runner. My interpreter (spike!) would execute "specs" against
> "proofs", but I tried to put a
Hi all. I'm with David in that plain-text specs are my holy grail. I
have actually been experimenting with this idea since I first saw the
story runner. My interpreter (spike!) would execute "specs" against
"proofs", but I tried to put a bit more into the grammar.
Specifically, the interpreter woul
On 10/15/07, James Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I really think it's important that this thing, whatever it ends up
> > looking like, be nice for programmers to use, not just programmer's
> > customers.
>
> +1
I think what we're pr
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really think it's important that this thing, whatever it ends up
> looking like, be nice for programmers to use, not just programmer's
> customers.
+1
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
___
rspec-users
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I really think it's important that this thing, whatever it ends up
> looking like, be nice for programmers to use, not just programmer's
> customers.
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
>
> ___
> rspec-user
On 10/15/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are your thoughts about using symbol identifiers rather then
> question marks? I think this increases readability and gets rid of
> ambiguity at least for me.
>
> step "a user named :username" do |username|
>
> end
I think that I'm
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the conventions are kept reasonably tight then this concern could
> be largely ameliorated with a good automated tool for generating an
> ".rb" file from an ".story" file, or updating an existing ".rb" file
> from an updated ".story" fil
On 10/15/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > To me adding a story parser to parse a text file adds overhead to the
> > > rspec team and to developers and customers using it. In
El 16/10/2007, a las 2:44, "Pat Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>> Wincet Colaitua brings up a good point [3] in regards to
>> StepMatchers:
>>
>> "My main concern here is that you're now having to keep two
>> files in
>> sync to have the stories work properly."
>
> Perhaps there was
On 10/15/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To me adding a story parser to parse a text file adds overhead to the
> > rspec team and to developers and customers using it. In a way I fear
> > that the textual freedom of a raw text file
On 10/15/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me adding a story parser to parse a text file adds overhead to the
> rspec team and to developers and customers using it. In a way I fear
> that the textual freedom of a raw text file will lead to many gray
> area's both on the rspec's implem
I agree with the start of this thread with Pat Maddox stating,
"I think we all know that the readability of steps isn't great right
now..."
My argument in the thread [0, 1] that may have sparked Pat's initial
implementation of StepMatcher's asked the question about what value
is being added
On 10/15/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure that anyone was suggesting that we ditch the
> current way. I certainly wasn't. If you want to embed code then you
> can.
Actually - if we do go down this path, I'd like to see the embedded
code go away. The structure that e
On 10/15/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/2007 6:11 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, James Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Just wanted to chime in and say, as a regular user of the folding
> >> features of the editor, this is what really resonated with me when
> >>
On 10/15/2007 6:11 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
> On 10/15/07, James Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just wanted to chime in and say, as a regular user of the folding
>> features of the editor, this is what really resonated with me when
>> Story Runner was first introduced. In fact, I recently did a
On 10/15/2007 10:11 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "Pat Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>> Jay mentioned antlr. This parser is so simple though that I doubt we
>> would need/want that. There's not really any parsing at all in fact.
>> You just look at each line, f
On 10/15/07, James Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> - The customer/client
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> - The customer/client (not necessarily with any programming
> >> knowledge) writes the st
El 15/10/2007, a las 17:01, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> Part of this is to separate the programming 'noise' from the text, so
> if we do head down this path (which remains to be seen) I doubt these
> would end up in the same file.
Thinking about this, the only way to reall
On 10/15/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > El 15/10/2007, a las 5:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > >>> Actually a parser for this would be quite simple
> > >>
> > >> Dead simple. It would also allow us to do away wit
On 10/15/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having this expression of stories and scenarios appearing devoid of
> programmatic ideas has great potential to help the customers feel
> ownership over stories/scenarios. Of course, there is an underlying
> relationship to syntax that they'
On 10/15/07, Alvin Schur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Message: 7
> > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:04:33 -0500
> > From: "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Step matchers
> > To: rspec-users
> > Message-ID:
>
Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:04:33 -0500
> From: "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Step matchers
> To: rspec-users
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
&g
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> - The customer/client (not necessarily with any programming
> >> knowledge) writes the st
El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> - The customer/client (not necessarily with any programming
>> knowledge) writes the stories in a format which is (almost) plain
>> text.
>
> Why almost?
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "Pat Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 10/14/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Actually a parser for this would be quite sim
El 15/10/2007, a las 14:21, "Pat Maddox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10/14/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Actually a parser for this would be quite simple
>>
>> Dead simple. It would also allow us to do away with meth
On 10/15/07, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2007, at 10:25, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> > - The customer/client (not necessarily with any programming
> > knowledge) writes the stories in a format which is (almost) plain
> > text.
> > - The developer then writes custom "step matcher
On 10/15/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El 15/10/2007, a las 5:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> >>> Actually a parser for this would be quite simple
> >>
> >> Dead simple. It would also allow us to do away with methods like
> >> Given, When and Then, which some people have obj
On 15 Oct 2007, at 10:25, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> - The customer/client (not necessarily with any programming
> knowledge) writes the stories in a format which is (almost) plain
> text.
> - The developer then writes custom "step matchers"; where do they go?
> - How much of parsing can be genera
El 15/10/2007, a las 5:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>> Actually a parser for this would be quite simple
>>
>> Dead simple. It would also allow us to do away with methods like
>> Given, When and Then, which some people have objected to (because of
>> the capitalization), because the stories are
On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/14/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually a parser for this would be quite simple
>
> Dead simple. It would also allow us to do away with methods like
> Given, When and Then, which some people have objected to (because
On 10/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:
> > > > >
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 rig
On 10/14/2007 8:09 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
> 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.
ANT-LR! ANT-LR! ANT-LR!
Jay
___
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 rig
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
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 prompt
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 de
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 ste
41 matches
Mail list logo
