Re: [agile-testing] Concordion

Thursday, January 12, 2012

 

Feel free to suggest one. To demonstrate what I'm saying we need to see a case where the language is evolving in the way George describes.

David


On 11 Jan 2012, at 21:04, Mark Levison <mark@mlevison.com> wrote:

 

Time to pull a Brian Marick: "I could use an example about now". A concrete example of how you would do something in Concordian and Cucumber genius could help us see something similar. Then we would be able to debate a concrete idea and not an abstract concept.


Cheers
Mark 

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, David Peterson <david@crowdsoft.com> wrote:
 

George,

The point is the instrumentation is not a general-purpose language. It's a language focused on the specific examples of a specific behaviour. That's why it doesn't change, unless the requirements themselves change. It doesn't need to be kept up-to-date. It's static. The bit that can sometimes change is the implementation of the fixture methods. That's fine because the specification protects you.

But if you merge the definitions of the tests with the way they are executed, as Cucumber does, you lose that outer protection. Any refactoring to Cucumber code could cause the examples themselves to become corrupt and you may not notice.

Is the difference clear?

Regards,
David



On 11 Jan 2012, at 19:34, George Dinwiddie <lists@idiacomputing.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> On 1/11/12 6:30 AM, Dave Rooney wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi George,
>>
>> I used Concordion at a client a couple of years ago. We looked at
>> several tools, including Cucumber, and settled on Concordion for one
>> reason: we could take their existing HTML documentation and instrument
>> it directly to create the acceptance tests without having to rewrite
>> much of anything.
>>
>> The existing documentation was pretty good, and I couldn't justify
>> rewriting it to use a different tool or doing significant reformatting
>> to use Robot or Fit or something similar.
>
> Oh, I don't doubt it's a good tool. I just don't believe it'll solve the
> problem of evolving the language together. David's assertion that
> another level of indirection does this doesn't convince me. If the
> language doesn't evolve, then it starts not saying exactly what it's
> doing. That's the same problem as other tools. Concordion's extra level
> of indirection just makes it harder to notice that it's not being kept
> up to date.
>
> - George
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
> Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
> Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

0 comments:

Post a Comment