8:53 a.m.
Conventional tooling, I mean the common frameworks already existent into
Java environment: JUnit...blah blah blah
If you think is the best and only Spock can solve our testing problem,
it's ok. But to me is hard to maintain 2 languages into a single
project. Java for development, Groovy for testing
If the argument is the BDD syntax, readability. I can achieve the same
with Ruby :)
But if you guys are all comfortable with it, follow your heart if it's
something specific to the push project.
Karel Piwko wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:22:37 -0300
Bruno Oliveira<bruno(a)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(a)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(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
--
abstractj