Harmonizing Wording For Background Support Across Rstest-bdd Documentation

Hey guys! Let's dive into an important task that will make our rstest-bdd documentation super clear and consistent. We're talking about harmonizing the wording around Background support across our documentation. This is super crucial because consistent documentation helps everyone understand and use our tool more effectively. So, let's get started!

Background: Why Consistency Matters

With the introduction of Background step support in rstest-bdd, it's become really important to ensure that our documentation speaks the same language. Imagine reading one document that calls it "Background steps" and another that refers to it as "Scenario setup" – that could get confusing fast! To avoid this, we need to review and harmonize the wording across all relevant files. This not only makes the documentation more professional but also significantly enhances the user experience.

Consistency in terminology ensures that users can easily grasp concepts and apply them, regardless of which part of the documentation they're reading. It reduces ambiguity, minimizes learning curves, and helps users quickly find the information they need. So, let's roll up our sleeves and make our documentation shine!

Files Under the Microscope: What We Need to Review

We've got three key files that need our attention. These are the heart of our documentation and where we need to ensure everything aligns perfectly:

docs/users-guide.md

The users-guide.md file is where new users typically start, so it’s super important that the language here is clear, concise, and consistent. This guide should provide a comprehensive overview of how to use rstest-bdd, including the new Background step support. We need to ensure that the terminology used here matches that in other documents, and that the feature is explained in a way that’s easy for beginners to understand.

Key areas to focus on in the users-guide.md:

• Introduction to Background Steps: How are Background steps introduced? Is the explanation clear and straightforward?
• Examples and Use Cases: Are there enough examples showing how Background steps can be used? Are these examples consistent with how the feature is described elsewhere?
• Terminology: Do we consistently use the same terms (e.g., "Background steps," "Scenario setup") throughout the guide?

docs/rstest-bdd-design.md

The rstest-bdd-design.md file delves into the architectural and design decisions behind rstest-bdd. It's more technical and provides insights into why certain features were implemented the way they were. Ensuring consistency here is crucial for developers and contributors who want to understand the inner workings of the tool.

Key areas to focus on in the rstest-bdd-design.md:

• Design Rationale: How is the design of Background step support explained? Does it align with the actual implementation?
• Technical Details: Are the technical aspects of Background steps described using consistent terminology?
• Future Considerations: Does the design document accurately reflect the current status and future plans for Background step support?

docs/roadmap.md

The roadmap.md file outlines the future direction of rstest-bdd, including planned features and enhancements. It’s essential that the roadmap accurately reflects the current status of Background step support and any upcoming developments. This helps users understand what to expect and keeps everyone aligned on the project’s goals.

Key areas to focus on in the roadmap.md:

• Feature Status: Is the current status of Background step support correctly indicated (e.g., "Implemented," "In Progress," "Planned")?
• Future Enhancements: Are there any planned enhancements for Background step support? If so, are they described consistently with the rest of the documentation?
• Timeline: Does the roadmap provide a realistic timeline for any future developments related to Background steps?

Acceptance Criteria: How We'll Know We've Succeeded

To make sure we're on the right track, we've defined some clear acceptance criteria. These criteria will help us measure our progress and ensure that we've achieved our goal of harmonizing the wording around Background support.

Review Current Wording Across All Documentation Files

First and foremost, we need to conduct a thorough review of all three documentation files. This involves carefully reading through each document and identifying any inconsistencies in terminology or messaging. It’s like being a detective, looking for clues that might indicate a lack of alignment.

What to look for during the review:

• Inconsistent Terms: Are there different terms being used to describe the same concept (e.g., "Background steps" vs. "Scenario setup")?
• Conflicting Explanations: Are there any conflicting explanations of how Background steps work?
• Outdated Information: Is there any information that is no longer accurate or relevant?

Ensure Consistent Terminology for Background Step Support

Once we've identified any inconsistencies, the next step is to establish a consistent set of terms for referring to Background step support. This means choosing the most appropriate terms and using them consistently throughout the documentation. Think of it as creating a unified language for our documentation.

How to ensure consistent terminology:

• Define Key Terms: Clearly define what we mean by "Background steps" and any related terms.
• Create a Style Guide: Develop a simple style guide that outlines the preferred terminology and usage.
• Apply Consistently: Make sure the chosen terms are used consistently in all three documentation files.

Verify That Feature Status Is Accurately Reflected Across All Docs

It's crucial that the status of Background step support is accurately reflected in all documentation files, especially in the roadmap. This helps users understand what features are currently available, what's in progress, and what's planned for the future. It’s like giving our users a clear roadmap of where we are and where we’re going.

How to verify feature status:

• Check the Roadmap: Ensure the roadmap.md file correctly indicates the current status of Background step support.
• Update as Needed: If the status has changed, update the roadmap and any other relevant documentation.
• Communicate Changes: Clearly communicate any changes in feature status to the community.

Update Any Remaining Inconsistencies or Outdated Information

Finally, we need to address any remaining inconsistencies or outdated information that we've identified. This might involve rewriting sections of the documentation, adding new examples, or clarifying existing explanations. It’s the final polish that makes our documentation truly shine.

How to update inconsistencies and outdated information:

• Rewrite Confusing Sections: Identify any sections that are unclear or confusing and rewrite them in a simpler, more straightforward way.
• Add Examples: Include more examples to illustrate how Background steps can be used in different scenarios.
• Clarify Explanations: Provide additional clarification for any concepts that users might find difficult to understand.

Reference: Diving Deeper

For those who want to dive even deeper, here are a couple of references that provide additional context and background information:

• Original PR: https://github.com/leynos/rstest-bdd/pull/43 - This is the pull request where Background step support was added. It provides valuable insights into the implementation details and the rationale behind the feature.
• Requested by: @leynos - Leynos initiated this effort, so feel free to reach out to them if you have any questions or need clarification.

Let's Make It Happen!

So, there you have it, guys! Harmonizing the wording around Background support across our documentation is a crucial task that will greatly improve the user experience and make rstest-bdd even more awesome. Let's work together to ensure our documentation is clear, consistent, and easy to understand. Happy documenting!