My mother researched our genealogy back several centuries and I’m just about as English as they come – so I decided to spell “Behavior” without a “u”. That’s the correct way to spell it – at least it was before we changed it to please the French! Plus it Googles better.
Why is this important? Well, the spelling’s not. But the language of behavior is. Eric Evans in his book “Domain-Driven Design” coined the term “ubiquitous language” meaning that the domain model should form a language which means as much to the business as it does to the software developer. Software quality is directly proportional to the quality of communication that takes place between the business and the developers – and speaking the same language is essential. How the software behaves should be described in terms that have meaning to everyone.
Enter “Behaviour-Driven Development” (BDD) which takes “Test-Driven Development” (TDD) to the next level using the language from the “Domain-Driven Design” (DDD). It’s the holy grail. To be able to describe what an application is required to do, in the ubiquitous language of the domain, but in an executable format.
Developers hate testing. They even hate the word “Test”. Loads of developers just don’t get TDD. It’s because the language is wrong. Take the T-word out of the equation and it suddenly makes more sense. Replace it with the S-word. Specification. We’re going to specify what the application is going to do (using the vocabulary) in an executable format that will let us know when the specified behavior is broken. Suddenly it all makes sense.
So in BDD we have the user story expressed in the following way:
As a <role>
I want <to do something>
So that <it benefits the business in this way>
Then the story can feed the specification using Scenarios:
With <this Scenario>:
Given <these preconditions>
When <the behavior is exercised>
Then <these post-conditions are valid>
Which is effectively the Arrange, Act and Assert (3-A’s) pattern ( Given == Arrange, When == Act, Then == Assert) for writing tests specifications.
And, don’t forget, the specification needs to be executable. For this we would love to have a language enhancement – we actually need Spec# right now. But we won’t get that for a while (although I encourage you to check it out, and petition Microsoft to get C# enhanced with DbC goodness). So in the meantime, we need a framework. In the .Net space several frameworks (NSpec, Behave#) came together to form NBehave.
Now you can write code like this:
[Theme("Account transfers and deposits")] public class AccountSpecs { [Story] public void Transfer_to_cash_account() { Account savings = null; Account cash = null; var story = new Story("Transfer to cash account"); story .AsA("savings account holder") .IWant("to transfer money from my savings account") .SoThat("I can get cash easily from an ATM"); story.WithScenario("Savings account is in credit") .Given("my savings account balance is", 100, accountBalance => { savings = new Account(accountBalance); }) .And("my cash account balance is", 10, accountBalance => { cash = new Account(accountBalance); }) .When("I transfer to cash account", 20, transferAmount => savings.TransferTo(cash, transferAmount)) .Then("my savings account balance should be", 80, expectedBalance => savings.Balance.ShouldEqual(expectedBalance)) .And("my cash account balance should be", 30, expectedBalance => cash.Balance.ShouldEqual(expectedBalance)) .Given("my savings account balance is", 400) .And("my cash account balance is", 100) .When("I transfer to cash account", 100) .Then("my savings account balance should be", 300) .And("my cash account balance should be", 200) .Given("my savings account balance is", 500) .And("my cash account balance is", 20) .When("I transfer to cash account", 30) .Then("my savings account balance should be", 470) .And("my cash account balance should be", 50); story.WithScenario("Savings account is overdrawn") .Given("my savings account balance is", -20) .And("my cash account balance is", 10) .When("I transfer to cash account", 20) .Then("my savings account balance should be", -20) .And("my cash account balance should be", 10); } }
And you can run that in a test runner like Gallio (which even has ReSharper plug-in). Just like you would run your NUnit/MbUnit/xUnit tests.
Jimmy Bogard, one of the authors of NBehave, wrote a great post about writing stories using the latest version (0.3).
NBehave is young. But I love the fluent interface. And the caching of the delegates. And the console runner outputs a formatted (more readable) specification that you can give to the business. It makes for really readable specs.
What about the granularity of these specs? There’s definitely more than one thing being asserted. But they’re much more than tests. They are unit tests specs and acceptance tests specs combined. They define the behavior and check that the software conforms to that behavior, at the story and scenario level. That’s good enough for me. I’d much rather have this explicit alignment with atomic units of behaviour (OK, the English spelling just looks better).
Also, it reduces the coupling between the behaviour specification and it’s implementation, which means you can alter the implementation (refactor) without having to change the tests specs. At least not as much as you might with traditional TDD.
To me it brings a great perspective to software development. I’ve always believed in unit tests and in TDD. This is just better. By far.
