Rickard,
Take a look at (just added)
http://svn.codehaus.org/jbehave/trunk/core/jbehave-core/src/behaviour/org/jbehave/scenario/steps/ConfusingStepsBehavior.java
It should be failing but is not.
Regards,
- Paul
On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Hi Mauro,
On 2009-10-23 01.29, Mauro Talevi wrote:
at the moment the candidate steps that are constructed from the Steps
class do not carry with them the annotation which denotes the type of
step. They simply hold the pattern and check that the string step
that
is provided to them for matching starts with one of the allowed
starting
words (Given/When/Then/And or equivalent in other locales).
Hence, a behaviour such as you've hit upon is possible, albeit may
not
be desirable from you point of view. I personally would not define
it a
bug, but as the old saying says: "one man's ceiling is another man's
floor" :-)
So you're saying there's a benefit to this behaviour? If so, I'm
curious to know in what way it is good. To me, right now, it just
seems confusing. I would prefer if words have meanings. Makes them
easier to use in my experience.
One immediate workaround is to slightly reword your steps so that
matching pattern is unique , e.g.
Given foo named Bar
...
When foo is cretaed with named Xyzzy
And this is what I have done. But I had to spend quite a lot of time
debugging my code, looking at test cases that sometimes works, and
sometimes don't work, because of this unexpected "behaviour". And
then to find that this design seems to be intentional - that words
don't have any meaning - was puzzling, especially in a BDD-project.
Am I the only one seeing a wee bit of irony here?
If you want to keep this behaviour, where words have no meaning, why
not simply replace all the annotations with @Generic. Then there
would be less of a learning curve! Just one annotation to learn!
The idea behind the current implementation was that the uniqueness of
the matching pattern would be sufficient, given that the language
typically is different in step of different types. The enhancement
that
would satisfy your use case is that it should be unique for each
given
step type or annotation.
Yes, that would be appreciated.
But, as always we're driven by user requests and use cases. Why don't
you raise an enhancement request in Jira and we'll evaluate the
impact
and backward compatibility. OTOH, I don't see any serious obstacles
to
this kind of change, but I would to look into in a bit more detail
before giving a definite answer.
Sure, I've filed JBEHAVE-196: Words should have meanings.
/Rickard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
