cmdrkeene · HackerTrans

Here's a quick ruby implementation:

https://github.com/cmdrkeene/bitmap-counter

GroupMe 2.0 (released today) uses either SMS or Push/TCP in the iPhone and Android apps.

Sometimes it's magpie syndrome, sometimes it's born out of a real need or deficiency in real systems. Kaizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen) is a theme I see on a lot of good ruby teams. People should always be looking to improve things but for real reasons, not for novelty. It's a fine line to draw sometimes, but in my opinion, steak eliminates a lot of the pain of cucumber by using tools my team already knows. Seems like a win to me.

cmdrkeene

16 anni fadiscuss

To your issues:

1) Yeah, organization is crazy. I think the method comparison is a bit unfair though. In theory, each step should be easily identifiable (like a method) but this is rarely the case given that most steps have complex regex matching (sometimes for grammatical niceness - e.g. (a vs. an), sometimes for other crazy town reasons). This makes not only automated indexing difficult (RubyMine tries...) but trying to keep hundreds of steps in your head is pretty hard. Especially one's you probably didn't write.

The cool thing about steak is that helpers and "reusable steps" are actually just methods! Hello ctags :D

b) Our case was:

  And the user "212-555-1234" should receive a text with:
    | Some "double quoted" and 'single quoted' text |

Definitely possible in cucumber, but I prefer a string equality assertion:

  text.should == "..." (you have to do this anyway in the step_definition)

c) Ben Maeby's email_spec is awesome and provides some steps for clicking on links in email. I still use the library in steak (just the raw rspec matchers though).

The trouble is you have a url:

  http://coolsite.org/something/abcde22424aw3324234

The matcher provided says:

I click on the link "Link Title or URL". Since the token is random every time (unless you stub it, which is kinda out of the spirit of acceptance testing, but that's another debate) it's hard to say "Click on the link with the big ass token in it".

You can definitely write a step like:

  And I visit the account confirmation link

Again, a matter of preference for abstracting the step with one-time use, highly coupled text to code vs. a comment and the code together. The actual mechanics are the same in both systems, it's just that cucumber hides them in a one-time use step away from the actual feature whereas the steak is inline.

d) Similar to the above, the catch all step can work in cucumber. Though, in a few scenarios, it's desirable to run only specific jobs or more often in our case, to check if jobs are scheduled in a specific way. It avoids the weird scenario of writing a step definition like "And I run only the blah jobs" or "And a blah job should be scheduled with ...". Ideally the job system would be decoupled entirely from the acceptance test, but we can't all do cool stuff like this all the time: http://corner.squareup.com/2010/08/cucumber-and-resque.html

cmdrkeene

16 anni fadiscuss

Steak doesn't want to be cucumber at all. It's plain ruby. The "DSL" aspects of the library are purely for legibility and structure. The keywords feature, background, scenario perform the exact same function as the RSpec keywords describe, before, and it respectively.

All steak does is provide a structure for acceptance tests and loop in a web automation driver (capybara).

Far less magical than parsing a the magic language of "Gherkin"

cmdrkeene

16 anni fadiscuss

To your points:

1) Agreed. It's simple. But, it does some nice things like 1) hook up capybara 2) create a /spec/acceptance folder and suite hook and 3) add some "behavior-oriented" keywords like feature, background and scenario. Of course, these are just dumb blocks and yes you could use the provided RSpec DSL (describe, it, before, etc) but it helps (if only mildly) to indicate that this is an acceptance test and to maybe put the programmer more in that mindset. This isn't groundbreaking, it's just a nice convention in my opinion.

2) This is a fair criticism. It does put the programmer more in a "code-centric" mindset than a "behavior-centric" one.

To address this I usually write out the feature in comments exactly as I would in cucumber. This might sound like an argument against steak, but it's not. The most useful thing about cucumber to me is the pattern of thinking: "Given this, When I do something, Then I should see that". The trouble is in the details: the maintenance, the awkward step gymnastics, etc. If you write out a pseudo-feature in comments then under each line of comments write the code, it totally remove the layer of feature vs. step definition indirection that plagues large cucumber projects.

3) Totally agreed. Though, very few projects I've used cucumber on ever let customers see feature files, let alone write them. Steak is for programmers, not customers.

There is no issue ramping up because it's just rspec and capybara. This is exactly what's under the sheets of most cucumber (for rails) installs. Anyone who implements cucumber step definitions should be well versed.