Thank you very much. It works now with my example.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mauro Talevi <[email protected]> wrote: > 4.0-beta-8 has just been released, with the agreed keywords. > > On 18/06/2014 08:55, Hans Schwäbli wrote: > > When will there be a beta-8 version of the 4.x branch containing this > fix? > > I am asking because the examples for the JBehave article will need that, > and the magazine is published on 2nd of July. > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Mauro Talevi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sold! To the German-speaking gentleman at the back of the room :-) >> >> >> On 20/05/2014 21:00, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote: >> >>> Hans, >>> >>> I stand corrected, in this case JEDES is a better translation for ANY. >>> And make FAILURE FEHLER. >>> Regards Mirko >>> -- >>> http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ >>> https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) >>> https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/ >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Hans Schwäbli >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Mirko, I suppose you are a native German speaker like me, right? >>>> >>>> What is your message? That the current German translations for ANY and >>>> FAILURE are the best? >>>> >>>> Lets put it in the context: >>>> >>>> * Ergebnis: IRGENDWELCHE >>>> * Ergebnis: BELIEBIGES >>>> * Ergebnis: JEDES >>>> >>>> Did you try that feature? You should really try and see how it behaves I >>>> think. >>>> >>>> To me "Ergebnis: IRGENDWELCHE" it sounds unnatural. One can understand >>>> with >>>> a bit thought what that might mean. But it seems not so intuitive like >>>> the >>>> English word ANY. >>>> >>>> "Ergebnis: JEDES" seems to express the correct meaning and is easy to >>>> understand. Because whatever the result is, the steps in that block >>>> will be >>>> added before or after the scenario. In German: In *jedem* Fall werden >>>> Schritte vor oder nach dem Szenario hinzugefügt. >>>> >>>> Or concerning BELIEBIGES: Bei einem *beliebigen* Testergebnis werden >>>> Schritte vor oder nach dem Szenario hinzugefügt. Sound natural and easy >>>> to >>>> understand to me. >>>> >>>> But IRGENDWELCHE? Bei *irgendwelchen* Testergebnissen werden Schritte >>>> vor >>>> oder nach dem Szenario hinzugefügt? This sounds very strange to me. >>>> >>>> Concerning ISTQB, this is the definition of a failure: >>>> Deviation of the component or system from its expected delivery, >>>> service or >>>> result. >>>> See: http://www.istqb.org/downloads/viewcategory/20.html >>>> >>>> Failures is translated by ISTQB as "Fehlerwirkungen". >>>> See: http://www.software-tester.ch/PDF-Files/CT_Glossar_EN_DE_V22.pdf >>>> >>>> So it is not "Ausfall". You may say it is also not "Fehler". But >>>> "Fehlerwirkung is an artificial word originating from ISTQB. Noone I >>>> ever >>>> met (except ISTQB teachers) ever uses this word but instead says >>>> "Fehler". >>>> >>>> By the way, defect is translated as Fehlerzustand by ISTQB. This is >>>> also an >>>> artificial word which noone uses except ISTQB teachers. In Germany we >>>> call >>>> them: Bugs or simply Fehler, or much more academically and very seldom: >>>> Defekt. >>>> >>>> Besides that, ISTQB, although helpful to some degree in its basic >>>> teachings, >>>> I consider it to be non-agile in its full extent. I take only the good >>>> from >>>> it. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Mauro Talevi < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, what's the consensus then with the keywords? >>>>> >>>>> On 16/05/2014 18:42, Mauro Talevi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'll defer to whatever you guys decide is best. We can always change >>>>> it >>>>> later. >>>>> >>>>> On 15/05/2014 18:27, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hans, >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure I agree :-). JEDES would be EVERY IMO. >>>>> >>>>> According to ISTQB FEHLER would be the DEFECT which causes a FAILURE >>>>> (FEHLSCHLAG), which may lead to an AUSFALL (BREAKDOWN) of a server ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Am 15.05.2014 12:34 schrieb "Hans Schwäbli" >>>>> <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> I re-tested it and now it works. Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> However I did not use that feature in-depth so there might be some >>>>>> other >>>>>> isues. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wondered a bit about outcome ANY. It seems to be like the >>>>>> finally-block >>>>>> in Java. The German translation IRGENDWELCHE is maybe not the best >>>>>> for ANY. >>>>>> Ergebnis: "BELIEBIGES" or "JEDES" seems to be better to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> And Ergebnis: "AUSFALL" seems not to be the best translation too. I >>>>>> think >>>>>> better would be Ergebnis "FEHLER". >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe some other German speaking guys can share their opinions about a >>>>>> translation for ANY and FAILURE? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Mauro Talevi >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There was an issue with parsing with non-EN locales. Now fixed, try >>>>>>> again with latest head. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2014 17:35, Hans Schwäbli wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I quickly tested the lifecycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Story: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lebenszyklus: >>>>>>> Vorher: >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 100 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Nach: >>>>>>> Ergebnis: ERFOLG >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 200 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Ergebnis: IRGENDWELCHE >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 300 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Ergebnis: AUSFALL >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 400 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Szenario: Versandkosten fallen weg >>>>>>> Wenn ein Kunde 20 T-Shirts bestellt >>>>>>> Dann betragen die Versandkosten 7,5 Euro >>>>>>> Result is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lebenszyklus: >>>>>>> Vorher: >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 100 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Nach: >>>>>>> Ergebnis: IRGENDWELCHE >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 200 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 300 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 400 T-Shirts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Szenario: Versandkosten fallen weg >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 100 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Wenn ein Kunde 20 T-Shirts bestellt >>>>>>> Dann betragen die Versandkosten 7,5 Euro >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 200 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 300 T-Shirts >>>>>>> Gegeben im Lager sind 400 T-Shirts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It does not work as I expect it since it executes all three after >>>>>>> steps >>>>>>> although it should only execute the one for "Ergebnis: ERFOLG" >>>>>>> (Outcome: >>>>>>> SUCCESS). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday or next week I can test that a bit more thoroughly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mauro Talevi >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cool, we'll push out new beta soon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you also take the Lifecycle After upon outcome functionality >>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>> spin while you're at it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2014 13:42, Hans Schwäbli wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I mixed up snapshot versions with beta-versions, sorry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tried now the snapshot version and it works now as expected >>>>>>>> concerning the problem with the examples table. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But there is a problem with comments. I will write a posting just on >>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Mauro Talevi >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, a new beta has not been deployed yet. In the meantime, you >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> use the latest 3.9.x or build the 4.0 snapshot from source. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8 May 2014, at 08:59, Hans Schwäbli < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you! Is it also deployed? >>>>>>>>> I did not find it here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://nexus.codehaus.org/content/groups/public/org/jbehave/jbehave-core/4.0-beta-7/ >>>>>>>>> The last snapshot there is from 2nd of May. >>>>>>>>> The same snapshot date is on: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.jbehave/jbehave-maven-plugin/4.0-beta-7/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Mauro Talevi >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This issue is now fixed in head of 4.x branch. It did not apply >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> 3.x. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/05/2014 10:55, Hans Schwäbli wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I created such an example for jbehave-core now and attached it to >>>>>>>>>> this posting. I still cannot work on a clone the Github project >>>>>>>>>> because of >>>>>>>>>> company restrictions (I haven't yet received an answer why it is >>>>>>>>>> not working >>>>>>>>>> inside the company proxy). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In case the mailing list does not support attachments I have also >>>>>>>>>> sent them directly to Mauro. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To reproduce it you will need this in the Maven pom.xml: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <metaFilters> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <metaFilter>+component order -skip</metaFilter> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> </metaFilters> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Hans Schwäbli >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I committed it here: >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/OttoDiesel/jbehave-shop-example.git >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will add such a scenario to the core examples. Until then you >>>>>>>>>>> could use that other example if you like. It is the example for >>>>>>>>>>> the article >>>>>>>>>>> on JBehave by the way. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Mauro Talevi >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it looks likely to be unrelated to given stories and such. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please add a scenario reproducing the behaviour to the >>>>>>>>>>>> meta_filtering.story in the core examples (preferably in >>>>>>>>>>>> English)? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does it work with 3.x? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/05/2014 11:34, Hans Schwäbli wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I already use >>>>>>>>>>>> StoryControls.doIgnoreMetaFiltersIfGivenStory(true). >>>>>>>>>>>> And I removed the given story in the story. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the result is the same. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe tomorrow I can commit the whole project, so that you can >>>>>>>>>>>> reproduce it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Stephen de Vries >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 May 2014, at 10:51, Hans Schwäbli >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the example story, see below. It runs not as expected >>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>> filtering by: +Komponente Bestellung -Skip >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> VorgegebeneStories: >>>>>>>>>>>>> shop/stories/Login.story >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that the given story doesn’t have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> meta-tags. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fix is to set: >>>>>>>>>>>>> StoryControls.doIgnoreMetaFiltersIfGivenStory(true) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> See: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JBEHAVE-789 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> > >
