Re: [aerogear-dev] PushEE testing POC

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.

Corinne On 15 July 2013 15:40, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:22:37 -0300 > Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; 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&lt;qmx(a)qmx.me&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev