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 <aschnell@suse.com> 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/ -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org