bdd

I have a Kiwi spec file that looks something like this: #import "Kiwi.h" #import "MyCollection.h" SPEC_BEGIN(CollectionSpec) describe(@"Collection starting with no objects", ^{ MyCollection *collection = [MyCollection new]; context(@"then adding 1 object", ^{ MyObject *object = [MyObject new]; [collection addObject:object]; it(@"has 1 object", ^{ [collection shouldNotBeNil]; [collection.objects shouldNotBeNil]; [[theValue(collection.objects.count) should] equal:theValue(1)]; //failing test }); context(@"then removing 1 object", ^{ [collection removeObject:object]; it(@"has 0 objects", ^{ [

Alternatively, is basic entity validation considered a specification(s)? In general, is it better to keep basic entity validation (name cannot be null or empty, date must be greater than xxx) in the actual entity, or outside of it in a specification? If in a specification, what would that look like? Would you have a spec for each field, or wrap it all up in one EntityIsValid type spec? It seems to me that once people have learned a little about DDD, they pick up the Specification pattern and look to apply it everywhere. That is really the Golden Hammer anti-pattern. The way I see a place for

I had a question about within dryness in Capybara here . Tom answered perfectly and in his answer he mentioned: Feature tests should be for testing larger behaviours in the system. Is there a difference between a feature spec and a view spec in Ruby on Rails? If possible explain it with some example please. Thank you. Yes, feature and view specs are quite different. The first is a full integration test and the second tests a view in isolation. A feature spec uses a headless browser to test the entire system from the outside just like a user uses it. It exercises code, database, views and

I am strugging to achieve this: I want to configure a maven project so that it runs different subsets of the cucumber features depending on the selected profile (dev | pro) For instance, I have a couple of feature files to test web navigation, using tags to specify the environment: PRO @pro Feature: Nav Pro Scenario: navigate to home Given access / Then it should be at the home page DEV @dev Feature: Nav Dev Scenario: navigate to login and log user correctly Given access /login When the user enters xxxx yyyy Then it should be logged I created two Test java classes, one for each environment:

I am coming from a TDD mindset into BDD. I understand that using BDD is to focus on ensuring the behaviours and business goals of software are being met. What confuses me is that if I start using BDD in place of TDD, it seems I'm not able to test at such a low-level. For example, when writing a test with a TDD mindset, I might test that properties have been attached to the scope: it('should attach properties to scope', function () { expect(MainCtrl.items.length).toEqual(1); }); In doing this, another developer knows the assignment to scope was expected and required for future use, saving them

So I've been searching pretty hard for a solid BDD alternative for iOS4 and Xcode4, but everything seems to have either been abandoned a long time ago or sortof working but rather messily. The best solution I've found is called Cedar ( main article with a link to a recently updated project tracker), though it has some issues with Xcode4 involving a messy workaround, as noted here . Does anyone know of a better solution? Thanks! EDIT: I decided on using OCUnit and mushing the BDD syntax into the test names. This is not my ideal solution, especially since all test names must be prefixed with the