|
DifferencesBetweenRcorAndConcordion
Known differences between rcor and Concordion
Lookahead (no longer different)Concordion will lookahead for variable bindings: nested.html<p concordion:execute="#greeting = greetingFor(#firstName)">
The greeting "<span concordion:assertEquals="#greeting">Hello Bob!</span>"
should be given to user <span concordion:set="#firstName">Bob</span>
when he logs in.
</p>As of 0.7.0 rcor will perform a similar lookahead. See LookaheadExample for more information. verifyRowsrcor implements verifyRows slightly differently than Concordion. The same tests are expressible in both, the difference is just in the instrumentation style: Concordion:concordion:verifyRows="#single_thing : getThings()" ... concordion:assertEquals="#single_thing.getWhatever" repeatedly binds the variable #single_thing as it iterates over the collection yielded by invoking getThings() rcor:concordion:verifyRows="#things = getThings()" ... concordion:assertEquals="#thing.getWhatever" does the same thing, but leaves the collection variable available as #things and infers the name by singularizing the collection variable name, in this case #thing. execute on a tableConcordion expects the instrumentation for a table to exist on the table tag itself. Ruby Concordion expects the same instrumentation to be on the header. Concordion: <table concordion:execute="#result = split(#fullName)">
<tr>
<th concordion:set="#fullName">Full Name</th>
<th concordion:assertEquals="#result.firstName">First Name</th>
<th concordion:assertEquals="#result.lastName">Last Name</th>
</tr>
...
</table>Ruby Concordion: <table>
<tr>
<th concordion:execute="#row_result = split_by_colons(#TEXT)">Given Text To Split By Colons and Uppercase:</th>
<th concordion:assertEquals="#row_result.alpha">The First Field is:</th>
<th concordion:assertEquals="#row_result.beta">The Second Field is:</th>
<th concordion:assertEquals="#row_result.gamma">The Third Field is:</th>
</tr>
...
</table>
|
Sign in to add a comment
"repeatedly binds the variable #thing" I guess. Thanks for really clear packaging.
Oops, fixed the confusing exposition in verifyRows -- thanks Bob.