Re: [shoes] White Shoes... what does the "generic" spec look like?
- Paul Hinze
- 2012-01-18 @ 21:53
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Peter Fitzgibbons
> I've been trying to create the WhiteShoes Spec.
> The problem I am seeing is that the Shoes<Framework> implementation requires
> certain internals to be mocked... and the shared_examples should not have to
> know anything about those internals.
> Any thoughts on how to work around this ?
Hi Peter et al.,
Really psyched to see the shoes-spec being factored out of the varying
implementations. Thanks to all who've worked on this so far.
One thought would be to express the "WhiteShoes spec" in plain (though
structured) english as Cucumber features, which would allow there to
be flexibility in the step definitions - with different shoe colors
potentially loading their own definitions to help them stub things out
I'm not sure if this strays from the core WhiteShoes goals, and I have
my own ambivalent feelings about Cucumber generally, but it seems like
this might be a nice usage of the feature/stepdef seam Cucumber gives
you. It would require interpretation (in the human sense) of the spec
in order to make tests, but it may allow us to come out with a
"document" of sorts that could be used for shoes in any language.
Let me know if I'm entirely off base; I've been trying to keep up my
list-lurking, but I may have missed some important points. ;)
Re: White Shoes... what does the "generic" spec look like?
- Peter Fitzgibbons
- 2012-01-18 @ 21:37
My question here touches up to the question of how to architect the
Those of you who have time, please read the following and send your
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: [shoes] Re: White Shoes... what does the "generic" spec look like?
- Eric Watson
- 2012-01-18 @ 22:10
These are good links. I believe something along these lines will work (I
wrote this in another thread, I think). Any of these--the Shoes::Config
route seems reasonable. If we adhere to open/closed, we can avoid most
inheritance, which is probably good.
On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:
> My question here touches up to the question of how to architect the
> Those of you who have time, please read the following and send your comments :
> Peter Fitzgibbons
> (847) 859-9550
> Email: email@example.com
> IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
> IM AOL: firstname.lastname@example.org