Comments on: Cucumber: building a better World (object)

By: Dr Nic

Dr Nic — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:22:07 +0000

@JasonF – thx for the reminder; I’ve updated the examples above.

By: Jason F

Jason F — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:13:37 +0000

Minor item: in cucumber 0.3.2 the webrat_steps.rb file has a slightly different syntax for fill_in. Change:

fill_in(“account_name”, “Mocra”)

fill_in(“account_name”, :with => “Mocra”)

Then it works. Thanks for the good post doc.

By: Aslak Hellesøy

Aslak Hellesøy — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:17:17 +0000

Glad you like it! It’s just a little smiley feature

By: Dr Nic

Dr Nic — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:26:49 +0000

@Aslak, we’re very excited that the sample step definitions (when you run cucumber and it finds a step for which there are no definitions) now inserts regular exception groups within “…” examples. That was very cool to find.

By: Aslak Hellesøy

Aslak Hellesøy — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:33:55 +0000

Great explanation of how World works Nic. Now I know where to send people who upgraded to 0.3.0 and “forgot” to read the release notes

By: Ben Mabey

Ben Mabey — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:26:31 +0000

@Amos King
You could use the steps within steps, but IMO that just seems silly in this case. Webrat provides such a nice API, why not just use it? Using the steps will also be slower than calling the method directly. The advantage of helper methods is that you can also pass in other ruby objects. I like using steps within steps at times but in general I find that using ruby as the common denominator easier to work with.

By: Ben Mabey

Ben Mabey — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:13:44 +0000

Email spec works with 0.3.0 now. I had a cucumber-master branch with the changes that I was waiting on merging in until the World changes were on rubyforge.

By: Dr Nic

Dr Nic — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:10:55 +0000

@Mark – the email_spec needs to be upgraded yes; it was Ben’s idiom for defining helpers that I’ve been using and which subsequently broke with 0.3.

@every-questioning-the-refactoring – sorry that wasn’t really the point of the article. It was a trite example with correspondingly trite refactoring. Sorry about that. I was just showing how I’ve seen how/where to refactor your methods to – the support folder inside a module.

By: JeffMo

JeffMo — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:08:12 +0000

Perhaps you meant “bonnified” as a joke, but it’s a frequent mistake, so I thought I’d mention it.

By: Mark Wilden

Mark Wilden — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:30:27 +0000

0.3.0 doesn’t seem to be backward-compatible. In particular, the email_spec gem you wrote about last time won’t work with 0.3.0, right? In other words, is it an error to use the old style or is it a deprecation warning?