[aerogear-dev] PushEE testing POC

[Karel Piwko]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:54:13 +0200
Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > I'm a Groovy fan.
> > I'm new to Spock though and I'm impressed by its expressiveness.
> > It's also fit very fluently wit Java. Easy use of RestAssured libraries.
> >
> 
> 
> I guess the point is: plain java lowers the bar, for new contributors.
> 
> Is there a "java spock version" like BDD framework ?

There is JBehave: http://jbehave.org/. I've been experimenting with it, but
tons of boilerplate imho compared to Spock.

> 
> -Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Corinne
> >
> >
> > On 15 July 2013 15:40, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:22:37 -0300
> >> Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Do we have a good reason to use Spock instead of conventional tools in
> >> > Java? Something that only spock can solve?
> >>
> >> Spock gives us BDD syntax, which I think is more readable for tests that
> >> are
> >> supposed to cover specifications.
> >>
> >> The technical reason to choose Groovy than Java was far superior support
> >> to
> >> JSON, with is used to define content of REST requests. Spock also added
> >> far
> >> better support for parametrized tests.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by conventional tooling? Groovy works in IDE (at
> >> leasts JBDS/Eclipse, IntelliJ), it is compatible with JUnit test runner,
> >> you
> >> can debug tests from IDE, and you can also do the same in setup it using
> >> Maven.
> >> Also, it runs on Travis without any external configuration required.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Our tests can be written in Java? Maybe I missed the point, but have a
> >> > project based in personal taste doesn't make sense to me.
> >>
> >> For tests that require managing test environment, such as preparing
> >> running
> >> server and running non-mocked tests in isolation, Java is the only
> >> language
> >> where appropriate tooling exists imho. Groovy is a syntax sugar to make it
> >> nicer.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I would love to write my tests with rspec and JRuby, which doesn't mean
> >> > I will start to do it.
> >>
> >> I'm not a Groovy fan, to make it clear. But I'm always trying to select
> >> the
> >> tool that fits the purpose the best, and according to the POC sent month
> >> ago
> >> Groovy and Spock was simply the best offering.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Corinne Krych wrote:
> >> > > Don't focus on Groovy (if it makes you sad), emphasis is on Spock!
> >> > >
> >> > > #HappyPuppy :)
> >> > >
> >> > > ++
> >> > > Corinne
> >> > > On Jul 14, 2013, at 4:34 AM, Douglas Campos<qmx at qmx.me>  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:21:34PM +0200, Karel Piwko wrote:
> >> > >>> I have evaluated multiple API approaches, described here[3], Groovy
> >> and
> >> > >>> Spock seems to be the best to me.
> >> > >> And now I regret badly having missed the word "Groovy" between the
> >> > >> provided options when I've gone to review the push server codebase.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> #sadpanda :(
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> qmx
> >> > >> _______________________________________________
> >> > >> aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > >> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> aerogear-dev mailing list
> >> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> 
> 
>