<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Simon Willison's Weblog: cucumber</title><link href="http://simonwillison.net/" rel="alternate"/><link href="http://simonwillison.net/tags/cucumber.atom" rel="self"/><id>http://simonwillison.net/</id><updated>2010-01-05T19:30:39+00:00</updated><author><name>Simon Willison</name></author><entry><title>rlisagor's freshen</title><link href="https://simonwillison.net/2010/Jan/5/rlisagors/#atom-tag" rel="alternate"/><published>2010-01-05T19:30:39+00:00</published><updated>2010-01-05T19:30:39+00:00</updated><id>https://simonwillison.net/2010/Jan/5/rlisagors/#atom-tag</id><summary type="html">
    
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href="http://github.com/rlisagor/freshen"&gt;rlisagor&amp;#x27;s freshen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
A Python clone of Ruby’s innovative Cucumber testing framework. Tests are defined as a set of plain-text scenarios, which are then executed by being matched against test functions decorated with regular expressions. Has anyone used this or Cucumber? I’m intrigued but unconvinced—are the plain text scenarios really a useful way of defining tests?


    &lt;p&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/bdd"&gt;bdd&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/cucumber"&gt;cucumber&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/freshen"&gt;freshen&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/python"&gt;python&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/ruby"&gt;ruby&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/testing"&gt;testing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;



</summary><category term="bdd"/><category term="cucumber"/><category term="freshen"/><category term="python"/><category term="ruby"/><category term="testing"/></entry></feed>