How to test the same behavior with different data
Hi, Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices . To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values. An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds. Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests? In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world? BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success. Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
I would really like to organiser a kata afternoon :) Stef On Sep 21, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Noury Bouraqadi <bouraqadi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
why not pass your data to arrays and iterate through them ? -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-to-test-the-same-behavior-with-different-data-tp47... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi, I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments. For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-( On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Hi, in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t... Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like: TestCase subclass: #DataTest DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} } It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ? Laurent On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/**noury <http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury> --
Hi, that's interesting idea, though I'm not, like you, quite sure that's the best design (same hold for what I proposed below :-) But: 1) in 4.0 there's no "single test result' object, whether the test pass or not is recorded merely by presence of test method's selector in one of three collections (passed/failed/errors). So you can easily track which test fail on which data from the dataset. This is fixed in upcoming 5.0 by introducing TestOutcome object, so this will be a child's play to implement. 2) tool support - there are numerous tools hanging around which are built upon assumption that there's one test per method. You may aggregate results and say the "test method" passes if and only if it passes on each data from dataset. Not sure about that. One of the essential features for me - tool-wise - is to be able to see latest test results in the class browser and be able to quickly run them (like on the screenshot). Now, the question is how to represent the fact that the test failed only on some cases. Maybe in this particular case showing aggregated result would be just fine. On 22/09/13 21:43, laurent laffont wrote:
Hi,
in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t...
Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like:
TestCase subclass: #DataTest
DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b
DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} }
It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ?
Laurent
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz <mailto:jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz>> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/__noury <http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury> --
I played around with a combination of data driven testing and random data generation a while back: * http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/09/13/checking-squeak-quickly * http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakCheck/ There is a ConfigurationOf there. It integrates with SUnit by adding a new kind of TestCase that knows how to run theories, identified by pragmas. It also features the recording of a counterexample to your theory by generating a normal test method on the relevant TestCase subclass. I haven't touched the code in a while, but if there's interest I'd be happy to hack on it once more. frank On 22 September 2013 21:43, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t...
Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like:
TestCase subclass: #DataTest
DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b
DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} }
It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ?
Laurent
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Hi Frank, This sounds cool. But, how do you decide how many data you generate per test run ? Noury On 23 sept. 2013, at 11:19, Frank Shearar wrote:
I played around with a combination of data driven testing and random data generation a while back: * http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/09/13/checking-squeak-quickly * http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakCheck/
There is a ConfigurationOf there. It integrates with SUnit by adding a new kind of TestCase that knows how to run theories, identified by pragmas. It also features the recording of a counterexample to your theory by generating a normal test method on the relevant TestCase subclass.
I haven't touched the code in a while, but if there's interest I'd be happy to hack on it once more.
frank
On 22 September 2013 21:43, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t...
Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like:
TestCase subclass: #DataTest
DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b
DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} }
It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ?
Laurent
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury -- Afin de contribuer au respect de l'environnement, merci de n'imprimer ce courriel qu'en cas de necessite Please consider the environment before you print
Hi Noury, At the moment it's hard-coded to 100 data points. It'd be better to pull that out into some kind of configuration object though. frank On 25 September 2013 11:19, Noury Bouraqadi <bouraqadi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Frank,
This sounds cool. But, how do you decide how many data you generate per test run ?
Noury On 23 sept. 2013, at 11:19, Frank Shearar wrote:
I played around with a combination of data driven testing and random data generation a while back: * http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/09/13/checking-squeak-quickly * http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakCheck/
There is a ConfigurationOf there. It integrates with SUnit by adding a new kind of TestCase that knows how to run theories, identified by pragmas. It also features the recording of a counterexample to your theory by generating a normal test method on the relevant TestCase subclass.
I haven't touched the code in a while, but if there's interest I'd be happy to hack on it once more.
frank
On 22 September 2013 21:43, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t...
Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like:
TestCase subclass: #DataTest
DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b
DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} }
It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ?
Laurent
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury
Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Afin de contribuer au respect de l'environnement, merci de n'imprimer ce courriel qu'en cas de necessite
Please consider the environment before you print
Hi, Just published my blog post on ParametrizedTests that is a proposal that addresses the question we have been discussing in this thread. http://car.mines-douai.fr/2013/10/parametrized-tests/ I believe it can be easily integrated into Pharo's SUnit. Noury On 25 sept. 2013, at 12:38, Frank Shearar wrote:
Hi Noury,
At the moment it's hard-coded to 100 data points. It'd be better to pull that out into some kind of configuration object though.
frank
On 25 September 2013 11:19, Noury Bouraqadi <bouraqadi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Frank,
This sounds cool. But, how do you decide how many data you generate per test run ?
Noury On 23 sept. 2013, at 11:19, Frank Shearar wrote:
I played around with a combination of data driven testing and random data generation a while back: * http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/09/13/checking-squeak-quickly * http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakCheck/
There is a ConfigurationOf there. It integrates with SUnit by adding a new kind of TestCase that knows how to run theories, identified by pragmas. It also features the recording of a counterexample to your theory by generating a normal test method on the relevant TestCase subclass.
I haven't touched the code in a while, but if there's interest I'd be happy to hack on it once more.
frank
On 22 September 2013 21:43, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t...
Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like:
TestCase subclass: #DataTest
DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b
DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} }
It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ?
Laurent
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury
Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Afin de contribuer au respect de l'environnement, merci de n'imprimer ce courriel qu'en cas de necessite
Please consider the environment before you print
Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury
Hi, Just published my blog post on ParametrizedTests that is a proposal that addresses the question we have been discussing in this thread. http://car.mines-douai.fr/2013/10/parametrized-tests/ I believe it can be easily integrated into Pharo's SUnit. Noury On 25 sept. 2013, at 12:38, Frank Shearar wrote:
Hi Noury,
At the moment it's hard-coded to 100 data points. It'd be better to pull that out into some kind of configuration object though.
frank
On 25 September 2013 11:19, Noury Bouraqadi <bouraqadi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Frank,
This sounds cool. But, how do you decide how many data you generate per test run ?
Noury On 23 sept. 2013, at 11:19, Frank Shearar wrote:
I played around with a combination of data driven testing and random data generation a while back: * http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/09/13/checking-squeak-quickly * http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakCheck/
There is a ConfigurationOf there. It integrates with SUnit by adding a new kind of TestCase that knows how to run theories, identified by pragmas. It also features the recording of a counterexample to your theory by generating a normal test method on the relevant TestCase subclass.
I haven't touched the code in a while, but if there's interest I'd be happy to hack on it once more.
frank
On 22 September 2013 21:43, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-t...
Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like:
TestCase subclass: #DataTest
DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c <dataProvider: #provider> self assert: c equals: a + b
DataTest>>provider ^ { {0. 0. 0}. {1. 0. 1}. {0. 1. 1}. {1. 2. 3} }
It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about this ?
Laurent
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of parameters to a common test method as message arguments.
For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on each such combination. I would like to have something similar in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever find a time to do push it :-(
On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
Hi,
Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices .
To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests for a pong. I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, -but they differ only by values.
An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds.
Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests?
In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world?
BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and all people that contributed to make it a success.
Thanx, Noury Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury
Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
Afin de contribuer au respect de l'environnement, merci de n'imprimer ce courriel qu'en cas de necessite
Please consider the environment before you print
Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury --
participants (6)
-
Frank Shearar -
Jan Vrany -
kilon -
laurent laffont -
Noury Bouraqadi -
Stéphane Ducasse