News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Case Against Cucumber by chrismdp on Thursday September 19, 2013 @12:07PM (#6412499)
This entirely depends on how you write your step code. If you treat it like production code and aggressively refactor it, so you have minimal reuse of steps, lots of one or two-line steps, calling clean well factored plain Ruby code that actually does the work, you'll be a lot better off.

This does take time to create, but in my experience having acceptance tests written in a form which is readable to anyone is very useful. I've even gone so far as to create a gem to display the features as the 'help' section of a website:

https://github.com/chrismdp/rack-usermanual

Re:A Case Against Cucumber by cheald on Thursday September 19, 2013 @02:15PM (#6413256)
And now you have three codebases to refactor and maintain.

What's wrong with `rspec -f doc`?

Re:A Case Against Cucumber by goldvine on Thursday September 19, 2013 @03:06PM (#6413537)
exactly. saves so much time. perfectly legible for most.
Re:A Case Against Cucumber by jrochkind1 on Thursday September 19, 2013 @04:21PM (#6414009)
You weren't the first: https://www.relishapp.com/
Re:A Case Against Cucumber by chrismdp on Friday September 20, 2013 @09:54AM (#6417687)
Yeah, Relish is similar but not quite the same: it's a separate website rather than an integrated one.