Re: [agile-testing] Concordion

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

 

Exactly.

On 10 Jan 2012 22:00, "George Dinwiddie" <lists@idiacomputing.com> wrote:
 

David,

On 1/10/12 4:55 PM, David Peterson wrote:
>
>
> The critical difference is that you almost never need to refactor the
> instrumentation in a Concordion specification. It's not a mini-language
> that's evolving in the way a Cucumber given/when/then language evolves.
> The instrumentation merely links the contents of the examples in the
> specification to the fixture. In effect, each specification has its own
> completely independent language that suits its needs exactly.

Are you saying that in the example on concordian.org,

<p>
When <span concordion:set="#firstName">Bob</span> logs in a greeting
<span concordion:assertEquals="greetingFor(#firstName)">Hello
Bob!</span>
should be displayed.
</p>

you would never rename the method "greetingFor" or change the arguments
it requires?

- George

--
----------------------------------------------------------
* George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
----------------------------------------------------------

__._,_.___
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