Ok, I will raise an Jira issue because of the execution depending on outcome.
Concerning pending steps: It looks the same in the report when no step is found and when a matching step method has been marked @Pending. But this is not the same situation to me but the same word is used. Wouldn't it be more intuitive and helpful if one can see whether the step implementation exists but is not yet implemented (case A) or if it was not found (case B)? On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Mauro Talevi <[email protected]>wrote: > A step that is not found (or whose signature is not matched which is the > same) is considered pending. You can think pending as synonymous to not > found. > > Passing nulls around is not a safe nor good practice as it simply shifts > the problem without solving it. You can activate the step monitor to > investigate missing steps. We can make the debugging easier perhaps. > > Please send a scenario to reproduce the issue with given stories on 4.0 > > There is a case for lifecycle after steps to be executed depending on > outcome, like the @AfterScenario steps. Please raise a JIRA issue. > > Cheers > > On 25 Apr 2014, at 13:23, Hans Schwäbli <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I tried the new lifecylce steps in JBehave 4 beta-6. > > I wondered why my lifecycle after step was not executed (pending state). > > It was because the step method used a argument although the step name does > not contain a parameter: > > @Given("the user logs out") > > *public* *void* logout(String *user*) {} > > This mistake is a bit tricky to solve. What do you think about indicating > that no step was found instead of using state "pending"? Or you could use > that step, pass null into the step and log a warning? > > But this might apply to all steps, not just lifecycle steps. > > With lifecycle steps I have another issue. If a step has failed then the > after lifecycle steps are not exectuted. > > I think it would be good to also have after steps which are executed even > if a normal step has failed. Then I could do some cleanups in the after > steps. But if the after steps are not called because a normal step failed, > then I cannot do such cleanups. What do you think about this? > > By the way, I only used lifecycle because I have problems with > GivenStories. It is not executed but ignored. It used to work in former > versions. I couldn't yet figure out what the problem is, but I will provide > a reproducible example. > >
