On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:51:01 +0100 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 04:41 PM, Martin Vidner wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Josef Reidinger wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:06:57 +0100 > >> Arvin Schnell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:16:49PM +0100, Martin Vidner wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 04:53:41PM +0100, Josef Reidinger > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> as there is in last days some discussion how rspec can be used > >>>>> as specification or not and I would like to document how > >>>>> bootloader do its proposal, so I take it as oppurinity to write > >>>>> it in RSpec. > >>>>> > >>>>> Output for better formatting is placed to pastebin > >>>>> http://pastebin.com/raw/8YhuWwVi > >>>>> > >>>>> Please ignore for now typos. I am more interested if it is > >>>>> readable for you as specification how bootloader is > >>>>> proposed. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, it is a good summary of the requirements! > >>> > >>> No, these do not look like requirements but as *one* > >>> solution. Requirements should include the motivation. > >> > >> Yes, it is not requirements, it is specification how it works. > >> Requirements and explanation why something is done in given way is > >> captured in comments in code. Specification only say what it do, > >> not why. > > > > I see. As specifications go, RSpec is fairly low level I think. > > Would it be useful to use something higher level, for example > > Cucumber? It focuses on descriptions readable by non-programmers > > which are transformed into code and executed as tests. > > I tried Cucumber in the past. > > I have never found a non-programmer that can read Cucumber. :-) > > Moreover, the extra work needed to maintain Cucumber never paid off in > the mid-term. We switched to RSpec. Those complaining that RSpec > forces the programmer to be more verbose than it should be required > will probably simply suicide if exposed to Cucumber. ;-) > > Cheers. > > PS.- A funny side note, I think the RSpec reference documentation is > actually generated using Cucumber. http://www.relishapp.com/rspec/ RSpec use cucumber for its integration testing ;) https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/tree/master/features Otherwise I agree with you regarding cucumber. In long term I found maintaining rspec easier then cucumber and benefits from cucumber almost never appears and rspec output is good for me ( that why I asked on this mailing list if I am alone with that opinion or how others see it ). Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
