Also, start over again with Cucumber, and import the fixture schemas
from before.

There's a teeny bit of extra infrastructure to get a token. I built it by
accident, but we'll need it eventually, so I just left it in.

Three things here:

1. I'm going to translate features over, and mark them as failing when
they are failing. I'll also tag them with gh-N to mark GitHub issue #N
that they go along with.
2. `bin/rake cruise` has been set up to run for CI. Basically, it runs all
the things that aren't failing, and makes sure they pass. Then, it runs
all thet hings that are supposed to be failing, and makes sure they
fail. If either of those are not true, it fails the build, and if
they both pass, they pass. This way we know when something starts
passing again, and to remove the failing tag.
3. `bin/rake focus` is added when developing new scenarios. You just tag
the scenario you're working on with `@focus`, and then `bin/rake focus`
will run just that one scenario.

There was no existing schemas for the API key response, so I made one.

It's important not to refactor steps _too_ much, but these were certainly
http steps and not card steps.

We should handle these errors better, and now that we are,
let's reintroduce the failing second half of the scenario.

I'm actually not entirely sure that flunk-ing with the message
is any different than just bubbling up the error, but at least
it's a real assertion failure error, rather than a JSON API
parsing error.

This was failing, but for the wrong reasons. Let's fail for the right ones.

I missed these in my earlier cleanups.

Thanks @matthewfl

I took @matthewfl's work on the client library and fixed it up a bit.
There were some idiom issues, some conventions that we're followed,
and a couple of OOP things that _really_ bugged me.

I'm happy with this now, other than two things: we are doing OO terribly
with this whole response thing, and we should also implement DELETE.

Thanks for setting me straight, @mjallday

We'll keep these CRUD ones here, and do more intersting cases in the main folder.

The phrase "I POST to /foo" and "Make a GET request to /foo" both
sound 'correct.' So let's support both, depending on whichever
sounds better.

Basically, "Got a 409, expected a 201" isn't actually very helpful.
We can grab the error description out of the body and print it out,
and it's way more helpful.

This is probably the worst commit I've made in a while. I'm basically
not happy with any real part of it. But it works.

We use the url_template gem to handle url templating, but it isn't
expanding variable names correctly, so I'm doing that myself. With
gsub. Hopefully I can clean that up.

Furthermore, we need to sort of store an 'environment' of mappings
of ivars to the template names. Global-ish mutable state makes me
very uneasy...

@matthewfl, I want your opinion on how to not make this suck.

Issue #455 is tracking the failure.

Issue #456 is tracking the failure.

We were doing it the wrong way before.

We need this for increasingly more scenarios

This is needed for debugging when things go sideways.

I made the last scenario mis-understanding the way that the YAML scenarios worked.

Often, they have duplicate stuff with new names just to make sure that things work.
That means I don't need to translate them 1-1, I have to figure out which
thing is actually important and just do that.

This is currently not working. #459 is tracking it.

Note that this is different than the old spec, which was incorrect.

I don't know why this is failing. #460 is tracking it.

minor spelling updates

This is failing due to the content-type issue

I had the wrong fixture data, so it was creating a failed credit, rather than a succeeded one.

In 1.1, only instruments can be credited, so a default funding source doesn't make sense.

See #460

See #468 for more.

There's still a failure, unsure which part is right or wrong.

Same delivery address issue

Previously, @matthewfl had added some logging stuff, this is a bit
heavier, but often useful.

Erroring for the same reason the other Orders are.

... than escrow balance.

I missed this one because the scenario fails before it hit this part.
But it's pretty obvious it needs fixed.

The scenario failed before this, but I want to catch it now. Bady
copy/paste on my part

let's just do this all at once

Closes #468

Conflicts:
	features/customers.feature

#474 is tracking this particular failure.

#476 has the report

…card.

Yet another #469 victim.

Another #469.

Closes #476.

#438 will fix this.

#438 will fix that.

#438 fixes

#438 fixes

#438 fixes

#480 is tracking this.

#438 is the problem.

#438 fixes this.

#438 strikes again

#438 again

Should be linked to #481

#486

#487

Accidentally had two successes, now we have one and a fail.