You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The use of multiple step modules for a single feature (file) seems a little haphazard. It's intent appears to be sharing of code (i.e., step function definitions) between modules, but I think there are other, cleaner ways to do this.
Also, not processing multiple step modules would simplify error handling and negate the requirement to always implement a stub function clause in your modules, i.e.,
%% no more of these!!!step(_, _) ->undefined.
Please let me know if you would consider this change, as I'd be happy to contribute.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The use of multiple step modules for a single feature (file) seems a little haphazard. It's intent appears to be sharing of code (i.e., step function definitions) between modules, but I think there are other, cleaner ways to do this.
The use of helper modules, for example, would alleviate the need for this, and is supported on the cli (see https://github.com/hyperthunk/cucumberl/blob/master/src/cucumberl_cli.erl#L45) and could easily be moved into the main cucumber module.
Also, not processing multiple step modules would simplify error handling and negate the requirement to always implement a stub function clause in your modules, i.e.,
Please let me know if you would consider this change, as I'd be happy to contribute.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: