1–6 of 6 posts
What are your thoughts on BDD in general, with everything included (Gherkin, Cucumber etc.). What benefits have you yourself experienced (if any) or perhaps disadvantages of such ideas?
* Excessive verbosity
* Not type safe
* It lacks story abstractions (i.e. you can't flexibly create variations on a scenario, extend existing scenarios, etc.).
* You need to fiddle with regexes.
A side effect of these semantic/syntactic problems is that gherkin stories end up being too vague to be useful - i.e. the meat of the story is often missing.
I created a StrictYAML based alternative with python that I think has all of the benefits, fixes those 4 problems and doesnt suffer from traditional "YAML" problems: https://github.com/hitchdev/hitchstory
I call this "BDD with meat".
I like the overall idea a lot but I felt that the Gherkin language itself hamstrings the process - for four main reasons: * Excessive verbosity * Not type safe * It lacks story abstractions (i.e. you can't flexibly create variations on a scenario, extend existing scenarios, etc.). * You need to fiddle with regexes. A side effect of these semantic/syntactic problems is that gherkin stories end up being too vague to be…
One of the arguments, as far as I understand for the BDD verbosity is that fact that the requirements are easy to communicate with customers and so therefore would be more precise in going from defining requirements to actually building the right thing. How true do you find this?
I last gave it a good try about 12 years ago. In principle I liked it, but in practice it’s fairly verbose and slow. I much prefer Cypress/Capybara style testing.
I like the overall idea a lot but I felt that the Gherkin language itself hamstrings the process - for four main reasons: * Excessive verbosity * Not type safe * It lacks story abstractions (i.e. you can't flexibly create variations on a scenario, extend existing scenarios, etc.). * You need to fiddle with regexes. A side effect of these semantic/syntactic problems is that gherkin stories end up being too vague to be…
Interesting, I'll check it out. One of the arguments, as far as I understand for the BDD verbosity is that fact that the requirements are easy to communicate with customers and so therefore would be more precise in going from defining requirements to actually building the right thing. How true do you find this?
Cucumber essentially treats documentation and specification as equivalent, while hitchstory treats documentation as a more verbose and readable artefact that can be autogenerated from a combination of a spec and a template.