<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: There&#8217;s more to BDD than evolving TDD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dannorth.net/2006/06/theres-more-to-bdd-than-evolving-tdd/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dannorth.net/2006/06/theres-more-to-bdd-than-evolving-tdd</link>
	<description>It's all behaviour</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Maruis Marais</title>
		<link>http://dannorth.net/2006/06/theres-more-to-bdd-than-evolving-tdd#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Maruis Marais</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dannorth.net/archives/23#comment-31</guid>
		<description>Thanks for pointing me in the NBehave project direction and the information surrounding the differences between rspec and xbehave. 

I think that my effort is more focused around BDD-as-evolution-of-TDD, a lot of my focus is around language. Trying to create a framework that is not obtrusive, but rather foster people to think in terms of the behavior /specification/functionality of the class they are trying to test-drive. For example my framework attributes is Functionality (TestFixture) and Specification (Test) to annotate the class and methods.

I have found that developers new to TDD normally make all the usual mistakes and then loose faith in TDD. So take away the Test idiom and suddenly people think in terms of behavior and specification. Hopefully helping them to write better tests (specifications :-)…

When are we going to see information surrounding the ideas behind jBehave and how to use it, etc…?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for pointing me in the NBehave project direction and the information surrounding the differences between rspec and xbehave. </p>
<p>I think that my effort is more focused around BDD-as-evolution-of-TDD, a lot of my focus is around language. Trying to create a framework that is not obtrusive, but rather foster people to think in terms of the behavior /specification/functionality of the class they are trying to test-drive. For example my framework attributes is Functionality (TestFixture) and Specification (Test) to annotate the class and methods.</p>
<p>I have found that developers new to TDD normally make all the usual mistakes and then loose faith in TDD. So take away the Test idiom and suddenly people think in terms of behavior and specification. Hopefully helping them to write better tests (specifications :-)…</p>
<p>When are we going to see information surrounding the ideas behind jBehave and how to use it, etc…?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan North</title>
		<link>http://dannorth.net/2006/06/theres-more-to-bdd-than-evolving-tdd#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan North</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dannorth.net/archives/23#comment-30</guid>
		<description>There is already an "NBehave":http://gforge.public.thoughtworks.org/projects/nbehave/ project underway. "Graham Brooks":http://www.tadcombe.net/gbrooks/ is the project lead.

The main differences between the xBehave (JBehave, NBehave) and xspec (rspec, sspec) families are:
* xspec uses the vocabulary of "specification" where xBehave talks about "behaviours".
* xspec is exclusively looking at BDD-as-evolution-of-TDD, whereas xBehave is also about automating stories and scenarios.
* xspec extends the language to add DSL-type verification, so it is well-suited to dynamic languages (Ruby and Smalltalk are the current target platforms). xBehave uses "Joe Walnes's constraints-based approach":http://joe.truemesh.com/blog//000511.html.

I'll be releasing rbehave 0.1 just as soon as I can work out how to roll a Gem :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is already an <a href="http://gforge.public.thoughtworks.org/projects/nbehave/">NBehave</a> project underway. <a href="http://www.tadcombe.net/gbrooks/">Graham Brooks</a> is the project lead.</p>
<p>The main differences between the xBehave (JBehave, NBehave) and xspec (rspec, sspec) families are:</p>
<ul>
<li>xspec uses the vocabulary of &#8220;specification&#8221; where xBehave talks about &#8220;behaviours&#8221;.</li>
<li>xspec is exclusively looking at BDD-as-evolution-of-TDD, whereas xBehave is also about automating stories and scenarios.</li>
<li>xspec extends the language to add DSL-type verification, so it is well-suited to dynamic languages (Ruby and Smalltalk are the current target platforms). xBehave uses <a href="http://joe.truemesh.com/blog//000511.html">Joe Walnes&#8217;s constraints-based approach</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>I&#8217;ll be releasing rbehave 0.1 just as soon as I can work out how to roll a Gem :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maruis Marais</title>
		<link>http://dannorth.net/2006/06/theres-more-to-bdd-than-evolving-tdd#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>Maruis Marais</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dannorth.net/archives/23#comment-29</guid>
		<description>Test-Driven Development has jumped the chasm to general acceptance. This is a good thing, but like Dave said in his Google video, there are still a high percentage of people who practices bad TDD. But there is also people who is practicing BDD while their doing TDD. So what is the difference? The one thing I have seen is that most people think that TDD is about Testing. When you explain that TDD is really at its hart a design process, they squawk at you and give you a look like you’ve lost your mind. 

I see TDD as performing the following roles:

1. Design process
2. Requirements Capturing  
3. Behavior Specification
4. Regression Test Suite

For this reason I think we need a Behavior-Driven Development framework. 

My daily development environment is .NET and C#, thus I would like to have something that suites my needs. Dave is working on rSpec for RoR and then there is JBehave for java. But I was unable to find anything for the .NET space. So I thought, I will roll my own. 

Here is what I have so far:

using NBehave;
 
namespace SampleBehaviour
{
    [ Functionality ]
    public class CustomerLoadBehaviour
    {
        private Customer customer = null;
 
        [InitializeSpecification()]
        public void Setup()
        {
            customer = new Customer(123);
        }
 
        [ Specification() ]
        public void ShouldLoadCustomer()
        {
            Behaviour.Of( customer.Id ).Must.Not.Be.Null( "The Customer Id must not be null." );
            Behaviour.Of( customer.Id ).Must.Equal( 123, "The customer id's aren't equal" );
        }
 
        [ Specification() ]
        public void LoadCustomerShouldFailed()
        {
            Behaviour.Of(customer.Id).Must.Not.Be.Null("The Customer Id must not be null.");
            Behaviour.Of( customer.Id ).Must.Not.Equal( 125, "The customer id's aren't equal" );
        }
    }
}

I’m busy working on a TestTip for VS2005, but have finished the NUnit integration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Test-Driven Development has jumped the chasm to general acceptance. This is a good thing, but like Dave said in his Google video, there are still a high percentage of people who practices bad TDD. But there is also people who is practicing BDD while their doing TDD. So what is the difference? The one thing I have seen is that most people think that TDD is about Testing. When you explain that TDD is really at its hart a design process, they squawk at you and give you a look like you’ve lost your mind. </p>
<p>I see TDD as performing the following roles:</p>
<p>1. Design process<br />
2. Requirements Capturing  <br />
3. Behavior Specification<br />
4. Regression Test Suite</p>
<p>For this reason I think we need a Behavior-Driven Development framework. </p>
<p>My daily development environment is .NET and C#, thus I would like to have something that suites my needs. Dave is working on rSpec for RoR and then there is JBehave for java. But I was unable to find anything for the .NET space. So I thought, I will roll my own. </p>
<p>Here is what I have so far:</p>
<p>using NBehave;</p>
<p>namespace SampleBehaviour<br />
{<br />
    [ Functionality ]<br />
    public class CustomerLoadBehaviour<br />
    {<br />
        private Customer customer = null;</p>
<p>        [InitializeSpecification()]<br />
        public void Setup()<br />
        {<br />
            customer = new Customer(123);<br />
        }<br />
        [ Specification() ]<br />
        public void ShouldLoadCustomer()<br />
        {<br />
            Behaviour.Of( customer.Id ).Must.Not.Be.Null( &#8220;The Customer Id must not be null.&#8221; );<br />
            Behaviour.Of( customer.Id ).Must.Equal( 123, &#8220;The customer id&#8217;s aren&#8217;t equal&#8221; );<br />
        }<br />
        [ Specification() ]<br />
        public void LoadCustomerShouldFailed()<br />
        {<br />
            Behaviour.Of(customer.Id).Must.Not.Be.Null(&#8220;The Customer Id must not be null.&#8221;);<br />
            Behaviour.Of( customer.Id ).Must.Not.Equal( 125, &#8220;The customer id&#8217;s aren&#8217;t equal&#8221; );<br />
        }<br />
    }<br />
}</p>
<p>I’m busy working on a TestTip for VS2005, but have finished the NUnit integration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Yip</title>
		<link>http://dannorth.net/2006/06/theres-more-to-bdd-than-evolving-tdd#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Yip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dannorth.net/archives/23#comment-28</guid>
		<description>I would have said "don't underestimate the value of skilled testing on your team".  Perhaps even "skilled test discovery", which distinguishes it from test execution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would have said &#8220;don&#8217;t underestimate the value of skilled testing on your team&#8221;.  Perhaps even &#8220;skilled test discovery&#8221;, which distinguishes it from test execution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
