<div dir="ltr">I'm a Groovy fan. <div>I'm new to Spock though and I'm impressed by its expressiveness. </div><div>It's also fit very fluently wit Java. Easy use of RestAssured libraries.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Corinne</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 July 2013 15:40, Karel Piwko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com" target="_blank">kpiwko@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:22:37 -0300<br>
Bruno Oliveira <<a href="mailto:bruno@abstractj.org">bruno@abstractj.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Do we have a good reason to use Spock instead of conventional tools in<br>
> Java? Something that only spock can solve?<br>
<br>
</div>Spock gives us BDD syntax, which I think is more readable for tests that are<br>
supposed to cover specifications.<br>
<br>
The technical reason to choose Groovy than Java was far superior support to<br>
JSON, with is used to define content of REST requests. Spock also added far<br>
better support for parametrized tests.<br>
<br>
What do you mean by conventional tooling? Groovy works in IDE (at<br>
leasts JBDS/Eclipse, IntelliJ), it is compatible with JUnit test runner, you<br>
can debug tests from IDE, and you can also do the same in setup it using Maven.<br>
Also, it runs on Travis without any external configuration required.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> Our tests can be written in Java? Maybe I missed the point, but have a<br>
> project based in personal taste doesn't make sense to me.<br>
<br>
</div>For tests that require managing test environment, such as preparing running<br>
server and running non-mocked tests in isolation, Java is the only language<br>
where appropriate tooling exists imho. Groovy is a syntax sugar to make it<br>
nicer.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> I would love to write my tests with rspec and JRuby, which doesn't mean<br>
> I will start to do it.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not a Groovy fan, to make it clear. But I'm always trying to select the<br>
tool that fits the purpose the best, and according to the POC sent month ago<br>
Groovy and Spock was simply the best offering.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> Corinne Krych wrote:<br>
> > Don't focus on Groovy (if it makes you sad), emphasis is on Spock!<br>
> ><br>
> > #HappyPuppy :)<br>
> ><br>
> > ++<br>
> > Corinne<br>
> > On Jul 14, 2013, at 4:34 AM, Douglas Campos<<a href="mailto:qmx@qmx.me">qmx@qmx.me</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:21:34PM +0200, Karel Piwko wrote:<br>
> >>> I have evaluated multiple API approaches, described here[3], Groovy and<br>
> >>> Spock seems to be the best to me.<br>
> >> And now I regret badly having missed the word "Groovy" between the<br>
> >> provided options when I've gone to review the push server codebase.<br>
> >><br>
> >> #sadpanda :(<br>
> >><br>
> >> --<br>
> >> qmx<br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> >> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>