Is there anything more to add on this?
We are in the same situation as Paul and are considering elaborating
fit-for-rules or writing our own fit/fitnesse stuff (maybe more like
Servicefixture). We hope to have business types take care of testing their
rules based on pkgs dev provides them.
I've also read this post:
http://blog.athico.com/2007/12/testing-rules-introduction.html
What's the status on this 'integrated testing tool' mentioned in the blog?
Joel
Paul Browne wrote:
As part of the some 'stuff' (you may be able to guess!) found myself r
needing to integrate FIT for Rules and the BRMS. No big deal in doing
the integration, just plugged in a new BRMSEngine fixture instead of the
existing Engine fixture.
Two questions
a) This code is generic - would you be interested in a copy for the Fit
for Rules project? There are other (minor) updates to the code.
or
b) Do you have something big up your sleeve that will (soon) make this
redundant (i.e. the QA Tab on the BRMS). Trouble is , would like to
write this up now(!). Am I right in assuming the 'QA' tab will
effectively be Fit for Rules integrated into the BRMS? (in which case
the samples will be easy to port later).
Ta
Paul
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/BRMS-and-Fit-for-Rules-tp15334736p16442903.html
Sent from the drools - dev mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.