Some of the resources I'm reading relate to BDD as an answer to "Bad TDD."
- Specification of behavior versus verification. Lack of inappropriate proximity between testing and implementation.
- Use of the ubiquitous / common language between business development tests
- The terminology emphasizes “behavior” over “testing”. So Given-When-Then, Context, Script, Examples vs. Test Suites, Lightings and Cases.
- Current specifications
Not sure if I missed more benefits .. please enter.
Given that most users (possibly a local phenomenon) "collaborate" in the creation / development / refinement of specifications, but are not interested in editing / viewing / executing / supporting strong> automated versions (of course, they expect all specifications to be satisfied by the software):
Is there any aspect of xUnit (e.g. NUnit) that prevents it from being a good tool for BDD?
- Writing in terms of Specifications is a skill that is agnostic.
- The same goes for the ubiquitous language. It just takes effort to get it.
- Please note the above limitation. Suppose I use the xUnit naming style, which is aligned with the BDD Given-When-Then style.
- / , " " .
- " " BDD...