Feature: Add TestCase#outline? for conditionals in hooks

[erran]

In Before/After hooks I commonly have a need to type check using the class name. One change I had to make while refactoring for the 2.0.0.beta.2 was updating from the previous Ast classes to the new TestCase mappings for scenarios/outlines. Adding the predicate method outline? provides a quick way to check vs. doing type based conditionals.

[os97673]

+1 from me. Similar check needed for formatters (from time to time)
@mattwynne WDYT?

[mattwynne]

Fantastic, thanks @erran.

I think we should try to document this new API with tests. I started this here: https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/blob/master/spec/cucumber/mappings_spec.rb though perhaps this would be easier to read if we did this in features. WDYT?

[mattwynne]

This feature is relevant to this discussion: https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/blob/master/features/docs/writing_support_code/before_hook.feature

[os97673]

@mattwynne why do you want to test them in context of hooks?
I'd expect that every place which may get scenario as param can call it. Do you suggest to write separate test for every case?

[mattwynne]

@os97673 good question. At the moment they are different objects[1][2], but perhaps we should fix that.

[1] https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/blob/master/lib/cucumber/mappings.rb#L128
[2] https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/blob/master/lib/cucumber/reports/legacy_formatter.rb#L1223

TBH, I care a lot more about the hook API than the formatter one, because I want to deprecate the formatter API as soon as possible after we release 2.0, wheras I see the Before / After hooks API lasting a lot longer. That's why I'm concerned about documenting it.

[os97673]

thank you do explanation.

[erran]

Thanks for the input. I was thinking about adding tests, but couldn't determine where they belonged. I think I'll start with Gherkin unless someone thinks RSpec makes more sense. In this case having read through both the before hook feature and the mapping spec I believe the spec would be less clear due to the stubbing/mocking going on.

[mattwynne]

@erran sorry it wasn't more obvious where to add tests - that's a codebase usability failure on our part.

I've worked on the mapping spec a little to make it a bit easier / more obvious how to add specs. WDYT?

[erran]

@mattwynne No problem. I'd rack it up as a fact that this is normally used from a before hook IMO but has impact on report formatters as well. I'll check out the mapping spec before I push my latest changes to the before hook doc feature.

Scenario: Examine type of test case
    Given a file named "features/foo.feature" with:
      """
      Feature: Feature name

        Scenario: Scenario name
          Given a step

        Scenario Outline: Scenario Outline name
          Given a step with a <placeholder>

          Examples: Examples Table name
            | <placeholder> |
            | step          |
      """
    And a file named "features/support/hooks.rb" with:
        """
        Before do |test_case|
          @test_case = test_case
        end
        """
    And a file named "features/step_definitions/naughty_steps.rb" with:
        """
        Given /^a step$/ do
          expect(@test_case).to_not be_an_outline
        end

        Given /^a step with a (.*)$/ do |_placeholder|
          expect(@test_case).to be_an_outline
        end
        """
    When I run `cucumber`
    Then it should pass

[erran]

I rebased against master and pushed the specs. I'll leave the before hook feature alone since the Ruby code is essentially the same.

[erran]

@mattwynne Also, the mapping specs where a lot more clear after your latest changes. 😉

[mattwynne]

thanks :)

[erran]

Great to see this merged. Thanks guys. 👍

[mattwynne]

Thank you. We’ll put it out in the next beta, probably Friday.

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.