Search Results

Search found 177 results on 8 pages for 'bdd'.

Page 1/8 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

• Advantages of BDD for solo developer

  - by user248959

  I have found this lines below about the advantages of BDD (Behavior Driven Development) The domain experts define what they need in the program in a way that the developers can not misinterpret (or at least not as much as in most other approaches). Are there any more advantages apart from that? If I'm working alone (I'm not in contact with managers that could write BDD features), do I need to use BDD?

  Read the article

• BDD in a .NET environment

  - by Nick

  I've seen BDD in action (in this case using SpecFlow and Selenium in a .NET environment) for a small test project. I was very impressed - mainly due to the fact that the language used to specify the acceptance tests meant they engaged with the product owner much more easily. I'm now keen to bring this into my current organisation. However I'm asked 'who else uses this?' and 'show me some case-studies'. Unfortunately I cannot find any 'big names' (or even 'small names' for that matter!) of companies who are actively using BDD. I have two questions really: Is BDD adopted by companies out there? Who are they? How can BDD be implemented in an agile .NET environment and are there any significant drawbacks to doing it?

  Read the article

• How to organize unit/integration test in BDD

  - by whatf

  So finally after reading a lot, I have understood that the difference between BDD and TDD is between T & B. But coming from basic TDD background, what I used to was, first write unittest for database models write test for views (at this point start with integration test as well, along with unittests) write more integration tests for testing UI stuff. What would be a correct way to approach BDD. Say I have a simple blog application. Given : When a user logs in. He should be shown list of all his posts. But for this, I need a model with a row user, another row blog posts. So how do we go about writing tests? when do we create fixtures? When do we write integration (selenium) tests?

  Read the article

• How to be successful at BDD Specifications Workshops?

  - by sigo

  Today we tried to introduce BDD in our software development process by having a specification workshop. For this workshop we had 2 developers, 1 tester and 1 business analyst. The workshop lasted 1h30 and by the end of it we managed to figure out some BDD scenarios for our new feature. We tried to focus on finding the scenarios that we could miss, and the difficult ones. At the end of the workshop some people were actually unhappy with the workshop. One developer felt he wasted his time as he was used to be given out the scenarios directly by the business analyst and review them with her. The business analyst didn't feel confident with our scenario coverage (Had a feeling that we could have missed out other important stuff) but more importantly felt that this workshop was also a waste of time as she could have figured out all these scenarios by herself and in a shorter period of time. So my question is how that kind of workshop can actually work. In the theory, given you have a new feature to develop, you put the tree 'amigos' (dev/tester/ba) in the same room so that they can collaborate together on writing the differents requirements for the new feature using examples. I can see all the benefits from that. Specially in term of knowledge sharing and common product/end goal/done vision. But in practice, we still think it is more cost effective to first have a BA to work on his own on the examples and only then to have the scenarios to be reviewed/reworked by the 3 'amigos'. By having the BA to work on his own, we actually feel more confident that we are less going to miss out stuff + we still get to review the scenarios afterward to double check. We don't think than simple brainstorming/deliberate discovery is actually enought to seriously cover all the requirement for a feature. The business analyst is actually the best person for that kind of stuff. The thing we just do is to review what she wrote and see if then we have a common understanding (which could then lead to rewrite some of her scenarios or add new ones she could have missed). This workshop lasted 1h30, and by the end of it, we didn't feel confident enought about wha we did...sure we could have spent more time on it but honestly most people get exhausted after 1h30 of brainstorming. So how can you get that to work effectively in practice ?

  Read the article

• How to be successfull at BDD Specifications Workshops?

  - by sigo

  Today we tried to introduce BDD in our software development process by having a specification workshop. For this workshop we had 2 developers, 1 tester and 1 business analyst. The workshop lasted 1h30 and by the end of it we managed to figure out some BDD scenarios for our new feature. We tried to focus on finding the scenarios that we could miss, and the difficult ones. At the end of the workshop some people were actually unhappy with the workshop. One developer felt he wasted his time as he was used to be given out the scenarios directly by the business analyst and review them with her. The business analyst didn't feel confident with our scenario coverage (Had a feeling that we could have missed out other important stuff) but more importantly felt that this workshop was also a waste of time as she could have figured out all these scenarios by herself and in a shorter period of time. So my question is how that kind of workshop can actually work. In the theory, given you have a new feature to develop, you put the tree 'amigos' (dev/tester/ba) in the same room so that they can collaborate together on writing the differents requirements for the new feature using examples. I can see all the benefits from that. Specially in term of knowledge sharing and common product/end goal/done vision. But in practice, we still think it is more cost effective to first have a BA to work on his own on the examples and only then to have the scenarios to be reviewed/reworked by the 3 'amigos'. By having the BA to work on his own, we actually feel more confident that we are less going to miss out stuff + we still get to review the scenarios afterward to double check. We don't think than simple brainstorming/deliberate discovery is actually enought to seriously cover all the requirement for a feature. The business analyst is actually the best person for that kind of stuff. The thing we just do is to review what she wrote and see if then we have a common understanding (which could then lead to rewrite some of her scenarios or add new ones she could have missed). This workshop lasted 1h30, and by the end of it, we didn't feel confident enought about wha we did...sure we could have spent more time on it but honestly most people get exhausted after 1h30 of brainstorming. So how can you get that to work effectively in practice ?

  Read the article

• How to design software when using BDD?

  - by Léster

  I'm working on a project right now and it's my first project using BDD. Up till now, the user stories have proven themselves a very valuable weapon to understand requirements and to specify the solution in a comprehensive, easy to understand language. My question is this: now that my user stories are complete, how do I design my solution? I understand that I derive behavior tests from my user stories, and I have to do UI design, but am I supposed to use good ol' UML? I'm under the impression that when using user stories, UML is left out; is this correct? Léster

  Read the article

• How abstract should you get with BDD

  - by Newton

  I was writing some tests in Gherkin (using Cucumber/Specflow). I was wondering how abstract should I get with my tests. In order to not make this open-ended, which of the following statements is better for BDD: Given I am logged in with email [email protected] and password 12345 When I do something Then something happens as opposed to Given I am logged in as the Administrator When I do something Then something happens The reason I am confused is because 1 is more based on the behaviour (filing in email and password) and 2 is easier to process and write the tests.

  Read the article

• BDD: Getting started

  - by thom

  I'm starting with BDD and this is my story: Feature: Months and days to days In order to see months and days as days As a date conversion fan I need a webpage where users can enter days and months and convert them to days. I have some doubts ... Should I write my scenarios before coding anything or should I first write a scenario and then write code, write a scenario again and then write code, and so on ... ? If I should write my scenarios before, can my steps be approved and production code still does not get done? When should I do refactoring on my code? After the feature is done or after each scenario implementation?

  Read the article

• BDD/TDD vs JAD?

  - by Jonathan Conway

  I've been proposing that my workplace implement Behavior-Driven-Development, by writing high-level specifications in a scenario format, and in such a way that one could imagine writing a test for it. I do know that working against testable specifications tends to increase developer productivity. And I can already think of several examples where this would be the case on our own project. However it's difficult to demonstrate the value of this to the business. This is because we already have a Joint Application Development (JAD) process in place, in which developers, management, user-experience and testers all get together to agree on a common set of requirements. So, they ask, why should developers work against the test-cases created by testers? These are for verification and are based on the higher-level specs created by the UX team, which the developers currently work off. This, they say, is sufficient for developers and there's no need to change how the specs are written. They seem to have a point. What is the actual benefit of BDD/TDD, if you already have a test-team who's test cases are fully compatible with the higher-level specs currently given to the developers?

  Read the article

• BDD IS Different to TDD

  - by Liam McLennan

  One of this morning’s sessions at Alt.NET 2010 discussed BDD. Charlie Pool expressed the opinion, which I have heard many times, that BDD is just a description of TDD done properly. For me, the core principles of BDD are: expressing behaviour in terms that show the value to the system actors Expressing behaviours / scenarios in a format that clearly separates the context, the action and the observations. If we go back to Kent Beck’s TDD book neither of these elements are mentioned as being core to TDD. BDD is an evolution of TDD. It is a specialisation of TDD, but it is not the same as TDD. Discussing BDD, and building specialised tools for BDD, is valuable even though the difference between BDD and TDD is subtle. Further, the existence of BDD does not mean that TDD is obsolete or invalidated.

  Read the article

• Is BDD actually writable by non-programmers?

  - by MattiSG

  Behavior-Driven Development with its emblematic “Given-When-Then” scenarios syntax has lately been quite hyped for its possible uses as a boundary object for software functionality assessment. I definitely agree that Gherkin, or whichever feature definition script you prefer, is a business-readable DSL, and already provides value as such. However, I disagree that it is writable by non-programmers (as does Martin Fowler). Does anyone have accounts of scenarios being written by non-programmers, then instrumented by developers? If there is indeed a consensus on the lack of writability, then would you see a problem with a tool that, instead of starting with the scenarios and instrumenting them, would generate business-readable scenarios from the actual tests?

  Read the article

• Are there any companies using BDD in a .NET environment?

  - by Nick

  I've seen BDD in action (in this case using SpecFlow and Selenium in a .NET environment) for a small test project. I was very impressed - mainly due to the fact that the language used to specify the acceptance tests meant they engaged with the product owner much more easily. I'm now keen to bring this into my current organisation. However I'm asked 'who else uses this?' and 'show me some case-studies'. Unfortunately I cannot find any 'big names' (or even 'small names' for that matter!) of companies who are actively using BDD. I have two questions really: Is BDD adopted by companies out there? Who are they? How can BDD be implemented in an agile .NET environment and are there any significant drawbacks to doing it?

  Read the article

• How to set up a one-man research in the difference between BDD and Waterfall?

  - by Martijn van der Maas

  Earlier, I asked a question about how to measure the quality of a project. The outcome of that question was that the quality of the project can be divided into two parts: Internal quality (code quality, measurable by code quality metrics) External quality (Acceptance test, how well the software meets the requirements) So based on that, I want to set up some research and validate the outcome of the project. The problem is, I will conduct this research on my own, so it's not possible to run the project once in BDD style and the other one in waterfall by myself. It's also not possible to compare BDD and waterfall projects on a larger scale, due to the fact that there are not enough BDD projects that can be measured because of the age of BDD. So, my question is: did anybody face this problem? How could I execute my experiment in such a way that it is of scientific value?

  Read the article

• Using automated bdd-gui-tests to keep user-documentation-screenshots up do date?

  - by k3b

  Are there developpers out there, who (ab)use the CaptureScreenshot() function of their automated gui-tests to also create uptodate-screenshots for the userdocumentation? Background: Whithin the lifetime of an application, its gui-elements are constantly changing. It makes a lot of work to keep the userdocumentation uptodate, especially if the example data in the pictures should match the textual description. If you already have automated bdd-gui-tests why not let them take screenshots at certain points? I am currently playing with webapps in dotnet+specflow+selenium, but this topic also applies to other bdd-engines (JRuby-Cucumber, mspec, rspec, ...) and gui-test-Frameworks (WaitN, WaitR, MsWhite, ....) Any experience, thoughts or url-links to this topic would be helpfull. How is the cost/benefit relation? Is it worth the efford? What are the Drawbacks? See also: Is it practical to retroactively write specifications documenting a system via automated acceptance tests?

  Read the article

• Should SpecFlow be used with BDD as a solo developer?

  - by baens

  I am a long time fan of TDD and after reading the RSpec book, would like to transistion to a BDD process. I like the idea of driving from the outside in, as it is presented in the book. What I am having a hard time getting a handle on is how to structure the tests. I have tried SpecFlow, but it seems cumbersome to use when I am the only one really ever going to be looking at the tests. I like the idea of just using straight NUnit, rather then adding another framework, like it is presented here. Is this a good way to try and structure BDD tests? Is there more information out there on comparing the two ways (that may even be more recent)?

  Read the article

• When should the BDD test scenarios be written?

  - by Si Keep

  I am looking into BDD testing within a scrum scenario and realise that the BDD scenarios are more akin to specifications than tests. Therefore should they be written before the developers go into pre-planning so that all of the functionality has been identified which would allow better estimating, prioritisation etc in that meeting?

  Read the article

• BDD (Behavior-Driven Development) tools for .Net

  - by tikrimi

  For several years, I use TDD (Test-Driven Development) to produce code. I no longer plans to work without using TDD. The use of TDD significantly increases code quality, but does not guarantee that the code is the code that corresponds to the requirements specifications (write the "right code" with BDD as opposed to the write "code right" with BDD). Dan North has described in an article in published in 2006 the foundations of the BDD (Behavior-Driven Development). In this article, he introduces the formalism "When Given Then". This formalism is used in all tools dedicated to BDD. This is a short list of open source BDD tools that you can use with .Net : SpecFlow: Here you can find an article in MSDN Magazine and 2 webcasts (http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/ASPNET-MVC-With-Community-Tools-Part-2-Spec-Flow-and-WatiN and http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/ASPNET-MVC-With-Community-Tools-Part-3-More-Spec-Flow-and-WatiN) published on Chanel9. NSpec: This is certainly the most used project. There are many examples on the web. StoryQ: This project is hosted on Codeplex. This small project is very simple to implement and very useful.

  Read the article

• Introduction to BDD using StoryQ

  Getting started with BDD in an easy way.

  Read the article

• MSTest/NUnit Writing BDD style "Given, When, Then" tests

  - by Charlie

  I have been using MSpec to write my unit tests and really prefer the BDD style, I think it's a lot more readable. I'm now using Silverlight which MSpec doesn't support so I'm having to use MSTest but would still like to maintain a BDD style so am trying to work out a way to do this. Just to explain what I'm trying to acheive, here's how I'd write an MSpec test [Subject(typeof(Calculator))] public class when_I_add_two_numbers : with_calculator { Establish context = () => this.Calculator = new Calculator(); Because I_add_2_and_4 = () => this.Calculator.Add(2).Add(4); It should_display_6 = () => this.Calculator.Result.ShouldEqual(6); } public class with_calculator { protected static Calculator; } So with MSTest I would try to write the test like this (although you can see it won't work because I've put in 2 TestInitialize attributes, but you get what I'm trying to do..) [TestClass] public class when_I_add_two_numbers : with_calculator { [TestInitialize] public void GivenIHaveACalculator() { this.Calculator = new Calculator(); } [TestInitialize] public void WhenIAdd2And4() { this.Calculator.Add(2).Add(4); } [TestMethod] public void ThenItShouldDisplay6() { this.Calculator.Result.ShouldEqual(6); } } public class with_calculator { protected Calculator Calculator {get;set;} } Can anyone come up with some more elegant suggestions to write tests in this way with MSTest? Thanks

  Read the article

• BDD for C# NUnit

  - by mjezzi

  I've been using a home brewed BDD Spec extension for writing BDD style tests in NUnit, and I wanted to see what everyone thought. Does it add value? Does is suck? If so why? Is there something better out there? Here's the source: https://github.com/mjezzi/NSpec There are two reasons I created this To make my tests easy to read. To produce a plain english output to review specs. Here's an example of how a test will look: -since zombies seem to be popular these days.. Given a Zombie, Peson, and IWeapon: namespace Project.Tests.PersonVsZombie { public class Zombie { } public interface IWeapon { void UseAgainst( Zombie zombie ); } public class Person { private IWeapon _weapon; public bool IsStillAlive { get; set; } public Person( IWeapon weapon ) { IsStillAlive = true; _weapon = weapon; } public void Attack( Zombie zombie ) { if( _weapon != null ) _weapon.UseAgainst( zombie ); else IsStillAlive = false; } } } And the NSpec styled tests: public class PersonAttacksZombieTests { [Test] public void When_a_person_with_a_weapon_attacks_a_zombie() { var zombie = new Zombie(); var weaponMock = new Mock<IWeapon>(); var person = new Person( weaponMock.Object ); person.Attack( zombie ); "It should use the weapon against the zombie".ProveBy( spec => weaponMock.Verify( x => x.UseAgainst( zombie ), spec ) ); "It should keep the person alive".ProveBy( spec => Assert.That( person.IsStillAlive, Is.True, spec ) ); } [Test] public void When_a_person_without_a_weapon_attacks_a_zombie() { var zombie = new Zombie(); var person = new Person( null ); person.Attack( zombie ); "It should cause the person to die".ProveBy( spec => Assert.That( person.IsStillAlive, Is.False, spec ) ); } } You'll get the Spec output in the output window: [PersonVsZombie] - PersonAttacksZombieTests When a person with a weapon attacks a zombie It should use the weapon against the zombie It should keep the person alive When a person without a weapon attacks a zombie It should cause the person to die 2 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 0.39 seconds (NUnit 2.5.5).

  Read the article

• Specification Pattern vs Spec in BDD

  - by cadmium

  I'm trying to explore Behavior Driven Design and Domain Driven Design. I'm getting that written specifications drive the tests in BDD, but also that business logic can be encapsulated using the specification pattern for re-use in domain objects and repositories, etc. Are these basically the same concept just used in different ways, used in conjunction together, or am I completely confusing the concepts? Please shed some light, if possible.

  Read the article

• TDD/BDD screencast/video resources

  - by Ree

  I've recently finished watching the Autumn of Agile screencasts and I'm looking for more material of similar scope. Basically, I'm looking for screencasts that present TDD/BDD process while developing somewhat "real life" applications (or parts of them) - so no 20 minute intros please. I'm surprised not to find anything like that though. If you know of any resources that fit the requirement, please list them.

  Read the article

• DRY-ing very similar specs for ASP.NET MVC controller action with MSpec (BDD guidelines)

  - by spapaseit

  Hi all, I have two very similar specs for two very similar controller actions: VoteUp(int id) and VoteDown(int id). These methods allow a user to vote a post up or down; kinda like the vote up/down functionality for StackOverflow questions. The specs are: VoteDown: [Subject(typeof(SomeController))] public class When_user_clicks_the_vote_down_button_on_a_post : SomeControllerContext { Establish context = () => { post = PostFakes.VanillaPost(); post.Votes = 10; session.Setup(s => s.Single(Moq.It.IsAny<Expression<Func<Post, bool>>>())).Returns(post); session.Setup(s => s.CommitChanges()); }; Because of = () => result = controller.VoteDown(1); It should_decrement_the_votes_of_the_post_by_1 = () => suggestion.Votes.ShouldEqual(9); It should_not_let_the_user_vote_more_than_once; } VoteUp: [Subject(typeof(SomeController))] public class When_user_clicks_the_vote_down_button_on_a_post : SomeControllerContext { Establish context = () => { post = PostFakes.VanillaPost(); post.Votes = 0; session.Setup(s => s.Single(Moq.It.IsAny<Expression<Func<Post, bool>>>())).Returns(post); session.Setup(s => s.CommitChanges()); }; Because of = () => result = controller.VoteUp(1); It should_increment_the_votes_of_the_post_by_1 = () => suggestion.Votes.ShouldEqual(1); It should_not_let_the_user_vote_more_than_once; } So I have two questions: How should I go about DRY-ing these two specs? Is it even advisable or should I actually have one spec per controller action? I know I Normally should, but this feels like repeating myself a lot. Is there any way to implement the second It within the same spec? Note that the It should_not_let_the_user_vote_more_than_once; requires me the spec to call controller.VoteDown(1) twice. I know the easiest would be to create a separate spec for it too, but it'd be copying and pasting the same code yet again... I'm still getting the hang of BDD (and MSpec) and many times it is not clear which way I should go, or what the best practices or guidelines for BDD are. Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• How can I get the business analysts more involved in BDD?

  - by Robert S.

  I am a proponent of Behavior Driven Development, mainly with Cucumber and RSpec, and at my current gig (a Microsoft shop) I am introducing SpecFlow as a tool to help with testing. I'd like to get the business analysts on my team involved in writing the features and scenarios, but they are put off by the "technical" aspect of it, meaning creating the files in Visual Studio (or even having Visual Studio on their machines). They want to know if we can put all the scenarios for a feature in Jira. What I'm looking for is suggestions for a workflow that will work well with BA types that are accustomed to project management/work tracking tools like Jira (we also use Greenhopper).

  Read the article

• At which architecture level are you running BDD tests (e.g. Cucumber)

  - by Pete

  I have in the last year gotten quite fond of using SpecFlow (which is a .NET port of Cucumber) I have used it both to test a ASP.NET MVC application at the web layer, i.e. using browser automation, but also at the controller layer. The first gives me a higher confidence in the correctness of the application, because JavaScript is tested, and improper controller configuration is also caught. But those tests are slower to execute, and more complex to implement, than those just testing on the controller layer. My tests are full functional tests, i.e. they exercise all layers of the application, all the way down to the database. So the first thing before any scenario is that the database is cleared of data, allowing the test to assume that only data specified in the "Given" block exists. Then I see example on how to use it, where they test just exercise the model layer. So what are your experiences with these tools? Which layer of the application do you test?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >