HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
aslakhellesoy
cucumber
HISTORICAL RECORD2010–2011
aslakhellesoy / cucumber · Not publicly available

cucumber

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2010-10-27 16:40:51 UTC to 2011-03-30 06:19:45 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012010-10-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsOct 252010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-11-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-11-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-11-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-11-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-12-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-12-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-12-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-12-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-12-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-12-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-12-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-12-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-01-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-01-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJan 102011-01-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-01-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-01-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-02-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-02-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-02-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-02-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-02-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-02-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-02-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-02-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-03-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-03-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-03-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-03-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-03-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-03-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-03-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-03-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-04-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMar 28

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 252010-10-25 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 12010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-08 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 82010-11-08 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-15 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 152010-11-15 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 222010-11-22 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-29 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 292010-11-29 00:00:00 UTC2010-12-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 62010-12-06 00:00:00 UTC2010-12-13 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 132010-12-13 00:00:00 UTC2010-12-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 202010-12-20 00:00:00 UTC2010-12-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 272010-12-27 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 32011-01-03 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 102011-01-10 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 172011-01-17 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 242011-01-24 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 312011-01-31 00:00:00 UTC2011-02-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 72011-02-07 00:00:00 UTC2011-02-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 142011-02-14 00:00:00 UTC2011-02-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 212011-02-21 00:00:00 UTC2011-02-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 282011-02-28 00:00:00 UTC2011-03-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 72011-03-07 00:00:00 UTC2011-03-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 142011-03-14 00:00:00 UTC2011-03-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 212011-03-21 00:00:00 UTC2011-03-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 282011-03-28 00:00:00 UTC2011-04-04 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
50,000 ft overview: Rspec: Behavior Driven Development Framework. It is essentially a different approach to testing than the test/unit (which Rails uses by default). In Rspec you are more interested in testing the side effects of your code, i.e. its behavior, you are less concerned with the internals. This doesn't mean you should write huge methods, and in the end your specs and tests will look pretty similar. My company uses Rspec on our main project. http://gist.github.com/649417 People will argue the value of the different styles until they're blue in the face. I liked Rspec's syntax more so thats where I started, but in the end I know both and think they each have their own merits and its probably a total wash. Recently with things like shoulda and other tools both approaches are rapidly converging on the same feature set. Cucumber: I
Read the rest
ntegration framework. This tests your whole stack end-to-end. Depending on what you are building this may be the only way to test it, and for a lot of people they are just doing Unit + Integration tests and not writing any controller tests. You write in Gherkin (http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/wiki/gherkin) which is a special subset of English. You can also use Steak (http://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/2010/steak-because-cucumber-is-f...) which lets you write your story in pure Ruby. Either way, this story is broken out in to steps and then some driver follows those steps, either driving or emulating a web browser. The original driver was Webrat, which you can think of as a web browser in Ruby. Webrat has been replaced by Capybara which is more complete and has pluggable backends, including Selenium. If you aren't using much JavaScript you can stay in pure Ruby and your tests will be parsing the HTML with something like Nokogiri, this is also pretty fast. If you have complex JS you can actually drive Selenium which in turn will drive a real browser (you can even drive flock of different browsers). Depending on how complex you get this can be a total PITA, so I would start simple with just getting it running in pure Ruby and maybe testing your sign-up form. Story -> Cucumber -> Capybara -> Selenium -> Firefox... its a lot of layers and as a result can be suuuuuuper slow. Factories: Instead of pre-loading a database with stuff (fixtures), factories let you write code that returns prepped objects for you. ActiveRecord takes a row from a table and converts it to an Object (Object Relational Mapper - ORM). Say a post from the posts table into a Post object. Factory Girl will just make you a Post object. I much prefer factories because you can actually get a stack trace to figure out where all the data came from instead of shifting between a SQL database, a YAML file, and a Ruby file to find your 'fixture fail'. There are some variations on preferred syntax and Factory Girl supports most of them. Shoulda: Just some macros to save you typing. Most of them work in both Test/Unit and Rspec. Instead of writing a test like this to ensure there is a validation error if number in't a number: http://gist.github.com/649419 Just saves you time and typing, at the expense of learning the helpers. A good test is something that breaks when the code breaks. Start small, test a few 3 line methods and then build up successively higher tests. Read the tests of some projects on github to get a feel for what they're looking to test, and how they approach it. Then just ask a lot of questions.
In Offer HN: Help with Ruby on Rails

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.