Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Behaviour Driven Development - Interesting Concept

Expand Messages
  • Chris Wheeler
    Hi, I ve read the non-argumentative BDD posts with interest and I can see it s value. Here are a couple of points / questions: 1. It seems as though BDD
    Message 1 of 31 , Oct 6, 2005
      Hi,

      I've read the non-argumentative BDD posts with interest and I can see it's
      value. Here are a couple of points / questions:

      1. It seems as though BDD approaches the concept of 'executable
      specification' in a different way than TDD does.
      2. BDD seems to be more about integration testing than about unit testing.
      3. Is BDD sort of the same as FIT or acceptance testing?
      4. I can see why jBehave is necessary for java, but for .Net, where nUnit
      uses [attributes], and thus doesn't force any method naming conventions,
      would it be safe to say that nUnit is an appropriate tool to use for
      experimenting with BDD, or is there something fundamental that is missing?


      Chris
      --
      Chris Wheeler
      www.agilelectric.com <http://www.agilelectric.com>
      coach, programmer & practitioner


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Randy MacDonald
      5 should equal the result...it looks odd because should equal is,of course, not symmetric. Now, if I could find a phrase (for now call it foo) such that x foo
      Message 31 of 31 , Oct 7, 2005
        5 should equal the result...it looks odd because should equal is,of course,
        not symmetric.
        Now, if I could find a phrase (for now call it foo) such that x foo y == y
        shouldEqual x... something to sleep on.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        |\/| Randy A MacDonald | you can't pay for it,
        |/\| ramacd@... | even if you want to.
        BSc(Math) UNBF'83 Sapere Aude | APL: If you can say it, it's done..
        Natural Born APL'er |
        ----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "David Chelimsky" <david@...>
        To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:42 PM
        Subject: Re: [XP] Behaviour Driven Development - Interesting Concept


        > Randy MacDonald wrote:
        >
        > >How:
        > >
        > > Result.Of( obj1.GetValue() ).ShouldEqual( 5 );
        > >
        > >is better than:
        > >
        > >AssertEqual(5,obj1.GetValue() );
        > >
        > >is beyond me.
        > >
        > >
        > Say them both out loud:
        >
        > "assert equal 5, object1.getValue"
        > "result of object1.getValue should equal 5"
        >
        > I think the latter reads better. Also, you would never say "5 should
        > equal the result", you would say "the result should equal 5" - so the
        > arguments seem backwards in AssertEqual - and you HAVE to put them in
        > that order if you want the failure messages to make sense.
        > Result.Of(x).ShouldEqual(y) both reads better and clarifies what is
        > expected and what is calculated.
        >
        > This is, of course, a personal opinion. In the end it's all about
        > communication and sometimes old comfortable idioms win out over new ones
        > just by virtue of precedent. Personally, if xSpec ends up offering the
        > community nothing but rephrased assertions then it's probably not worth
        > it. However, we won't know until we try it out and see what grows out of
        it.
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.