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 > > >