Creating stories for the second resource. Very wet approach

Hi y’all

I’m about to start writing up the stories for my second resource. The
second resource is so similar to the first that I feel a good way for me
to
start might be to copy and paste the stories and edit from there. This
seems very anti-dry though. Am I missing something obvious, or would
you
expect (and be happy with) a lot of duplication between stories?

Tim.

Hello,

I’ve come across a similar problem. Sharing the steps is the easy bit.
And I’ve started to create a ‘useful_steps.rb’ for storing very common
steps.

I have just copy and pasted the plain text stories before but since they
use the same steps, there was little new steps to write.

It feels like the steps are where you want to keep it dry but the
stories are the domain specific language to writing
acceptance/integration tests.

So it is similar problem to saying that models contain lots of
‘has_ones’ and hence are not dry.

Well thats the conclusions I’ve been coming to after using stories for a
while.


Joseph W.
http://www.joesniff.co.uk

Tim H. wrote:

Hi y’all

I’m about to start writing up the stories for my second resource. The
second resource is so similar to the first that I feel a good way for me
to
start might be to copy and paste the stories and edit from there. This
seems very anti-dry though. Am I missing something obvious, or would
you
expect (and be happy with) a lot of duplication between stories?

Tim.

On 17 apr 2008, at 15:44, Joseph W. wrote:

Hello,

I’ve come across a similar problem. Sharing the steps is the easy bit.
And I’ve started to create a ‘useful_steps.rb’ for storing very common
steps.

So have I. I use a lot of “Given a number of flurps in the system”,
and “When I add a new zoink”, most as as refactored and abstracted as
possible in common_steps.rb. Also, a form_steps.rb for common webrat
steps.

I have just copy and pasted the plain text stories before but since
they
use the same steps, there was little new steps to write.

…which isn’t wrong per se imho. Steps for removing, and editing a
post all start from the same initial state, “Given an existing post”.

It feels like the steps are where you want to keep it dry but the
stories are the domain specific language to writing
acceptance/integration tests.

Exactly. Stories may share steps, but the overal flow is always
different. If not, your stories aren’t 100% accurate.

So it is similar problem to saying that models contain lots of
‘has_ones’ and hence are not dry.

Nice analogy :slight_smile:

gr,
bartz

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs