When we started our current project we did not use context/specification style testing, instead we used testcase-per-class with a four-phase test model (also known as arrange-act-assert). Although we followed story-test driven development (STDD) we were not explicitly Behavior-Driven Development BDD when we set out. Over time I began to see the path between STDD and BDD we shifted toward a BDD approach.
That is really background for what comes next. As part of this shift we started writing more context/specification style tests. We did not re-write our existing testcase-per-class fixtures (then and still now I would see the possibility of using multiple test organisational patterns within a project; some of our tests still seem better with testcase-per-class). Recently we have had new developers join the team. One interesting, if anecdotal, observation has been that those developers find it easier to use tests as a source of documentation for what the software is doing when they are in the context/specification style. This is a useful observation, because the rest of the team is able to supply much of the context for testcase-per-class fixtures by virtue of having worked on the codebase and so do not see the lack so easily.
To build a maintainable system you have to build one where the behavior can be understood. Tests offer this promise, but often we have found that tests failed us, because the tests were no easier to comprehend than the code under test. Context/specification style tests seem to be better on this account. Of course there is no silver bullet in software. You still have to put the effort into making your context/specification tests readable, but the form seems helpful toward achieving that goal.
I'll try to post more on my experiences with BDD style approaches as they come out. I would also recommend that anyone interested in the topic look at the RSpec book from the Pragmatic Programmers which offers a great overview of the topic.
Posted
Mon, Jun 29 2009 5:08 AM
by
Ian Cooper