Resource create #27
Resource create #27
Conversation
blacksmith-welder
force-pushed
the
master
branch
from
69f1118
to
597d10b
Compare
blacksmith-welder
force-pushed
the
resources_create
branch
from
2372fbb
to
f496f7a
Compare
kdimopulu
requested review from
thimios,
balmas,
donaldjosephsmith and
brianzelip
| @@ -65,6 +65,24 @@ | |||
| end | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| When 'the user fills in {string} with {string} and selects {string} in the {string} form' do |label, value, selected_value, form_title| | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit of a nitpick but the user fills in the {string} field would be more clear to me here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have intentionally left the word field out since it's redundant. Everything that can be filled, selected, and generally is part of a form, can be considered a field.
The same applies to the user clicks on {string}, which is intentionally ambiguous, as it may be a button or a link, or it may look like a button but may contain a link, or the opposite.
The same applies to the word record for entities of the system. We use capitalized words for all the records like: Accession, Resource, Extent, etc.
We want the Gherkin to be as clear, concise, and compact as possible, and not so much the step definitions, which if you look at the block arguments, is quite clear what they refer to.
If we suffix the word field, shouldn't we do the same for all the {string}s, and for all form user input definitions (selects etc.)?
In my opinion, this redundancy reduces clarity:
'the user fills in {string} field with {string} value and selects {string} from the dropdown menu here? in the {string} form' do |label, value, selected_value, form_title|
If you think we must apply this change, I believe we should open a new PR, to apply these changes everywhere, to avoid inconsistency between various step definitions that use the current phrasing.
| @@ -129,6 +147,10 @@ | |||
| expect(page).to have_field(label, with: value) | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| Then 'the {string} has a unique value' do |label| | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similarly here; the {string} field has a unique value
No description provided.