diff options
author | Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> | 2021-08-27 09:54:07 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> | 2021-08-27 09:54:07 +0300 |
commit | d1812dbcc483e40843a0d8ed1fd915654cba0f89 (patch) | |
tree | d7d664301eef90bdc128c55a36e8d500c13f682a /blog | |
parent | 0a4db253323b6d9c2199f9af6712c31736dbb6e7 (diff) | |
download | sshca-web-d1812dbcc483e40843a0d8ed1fd915654cba0f89.tar.gz |
blog: decision on scenario step implementation language
Sponsored-by: author
Diffstat (limited to 'blog')
-rw-r--r-- | blog/2021/08/27/step-language.mdwn | 23 |
1 files changed, 23 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/blog/2021/08/27/step-language.mdwn b/blog/2021/08/27/step-language.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9117d95 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/2021/08/27/step-language.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +[[!meta date="Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:34:14 +0300"]] +[[!tag decision]] +[[!meta title="Decision: Use Rust for Subplot scenario step implementation"]] + +I will be using [Subplot][] to document the requirements and +acceptance criteria for `sshca`, and for automating the verification +that they are met. The approach in Subplot is to write semi-formal +_scenarios_ that get translated into code, using functions that +implement each scenario step. I can choose between the Python and Rust +languages for writing those scenarios. I choose Rust, because it +allows more concurrency when the verification code is running, and +also I find I can write correct code more easily in Rust than in +Python. + +The only reason to choose Python would be to make the step functions +be more easily audited by people other than me, but I think Rust has +already become sufficiently popular that Rust will not be a problem. +It's more important that the actual requirements, acceptance criteria, +and the scenarios are understood by anyone interested. + +The actual code for `sshca` will be written in Rust in any case. + +[Subplot]: https://subplot.liw.fi/ |