abracadabra_

P.S. I'm from Yorkshire so I'm used to accents being mocked.

I was more saying that one particular example (JRM) sounds stupid. I don't think this is a contentious issue.

However, RP can sound a bit silly with some pronunciations. The same is true with any accent.

No. We really don't.

People who speak Received Pronunciation (RP) may speak more in this way (look up Jacob Rees-Mogg if you really want to see how stupid it sounds) but they are a small minority of the British people.

How so?

All you're doing is communicating with the fake website owners. At worst it gives them an email address. This could be a temp account set up just for this purpose though.

I guess the first thing would be to try and contact them. They've anonymised their WHOIS info but it looks like there's a unique email associated with the domain: [email protected]

Try emailing them and asking WTF they're doing?

Congratulations! I think this is actually the first time I've seen a use for Cucumber. Obviously, it would have been better if you didn't have to do this but I've spent enough time as a consultant to know when to just work around the customers.

I'm a big fan of the Gherkin syntax and the output of my Example Mapping sessions is generally a big pile of them.

Automated tests are then written based on these but not "using" these. By not "using" the Gherkin scenarios for our tests we can be looser with the language and not have to worry about RegEx.

If a manager, or other non-coder, wants to see the tests, they can look at the very pretty report that was generated.

I don't agree with PayPal's decision here but I'm failing to see how it's as broad as people seem to be making it.

The TOS specifically say that you may not use PayPal for promotion of hate etc.

So you might not be able to buy a Nazi flag via PayPal but there's nothing there, for example, to stop you posting an image of a Nazi flag on Twitter.

Unfortunately, I'd need a few more fingers. Not too many though which makes that argument for Cucumber fairly moot. I did work somewhere where each team had 2 testers. One to write the cucumber and one to write the glue code for it. It was about as successful as you could imagine.

I'd also say "non-coding" rather than "non-technical". Coding is just one aspect of being "technical".

There is benefit in making the tests easy to read but this is better done in actual code, e.g. the screenplay pattern.

I will never understand the reason for Cucumber to exist. As you say, it just introduces unnecessary complexity for no reason.

If you can't code, you shouldn't be writing automated tests. Most of the "benefits" of Cucumber can be gained by using a good reporting framework. I like to use Serenity as I love its reports.

Maybe not, but the larger it is the harder it is to change.

There are pros/cons to both sides.

Yes, this applies almost equally well to libraries as well. With the slight exception that you are not just bringing the library into your code but all of its dependencies as well. This makes it _slightly_ harder to wholesale change a library compared to a service.

That sounds similar to redundancy in the UK but much more generous.

It always possible to get rid of either an employee or a role. The problem comes when you're getting rid of a whole department or say 10% of your employees. There are a lot more rules around that.