Details
Description
Annotations-based configuration can be preferable to some users.
Investigate and implement annotation-based alternatives to programmatic configuration, which should always be possible.
Activity
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  -
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  - 
        | Field | Original Value | New Value | 
|---|---|---|
| Fix Version/s | 3.1 [ 16511 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 3.0 [ 16302 ] | 
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  -
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  - 
        | Fix Version/s | 3.0 [ 16302 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 3.1 [ 16511 ] | 
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  -
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  - 
        | Assignee | Mauro Talevi [ maurotalevi ] | 
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  -
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  - 
        | Status | Open [ 1 ] | In Progress [ 3 ] | 
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  -
 Mauro Talevi
 made changes  - 
        | Status | In Progress [ 3 ] | Resolved [ 5 ] | 
| Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | 

 New Feature
 New Feature
             Resolved
 Resolved
             Major
 Major
                
Hi,
I think the first thing that needed to be decided is: where will be started the annotation interpretation process?
I could think in two alternatives:
@StepsSettings(classes={StepsTestClass.class}, monitor="") @JBehaveSettings(type = BehaviorType.USER_STORY, logLevel = LogLevel.DEBUG) @RunWith(TestRunner4JBehave.class) Class Cenario1 extends Scenario { @Inject public Cenario2(StoryConfiguration pConfiguration, Set<CandidateSteps> pCandidateSteps) throws Exception { super(pConfiguration, pCandidateSteps); } }Particularly I prefer the first one, so I can use annotations with DI to configure all my jbehave session.
More ideas?