On Feb 22, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
I'd go for src/test because, even if specs are changing the way we
test,
it's still test. If tomorrow a new nice testing library comes up
with new
testing concepts are we going to create its own src/foo directory as
well?
BDD is significant, it's not another test framework that does thing
slightly different than the previous one, and these conceptual
evolutions don't happen frequently. Not every other month, not even
very other year, that I'm just not worried about potential namespace
pollution.
BDD is significantly different from TDD. First, you write a
specification of how the software behaves. Then you fill it up with
test case that run against the implementation. Then you write the
implementation to pass the tests. TDD does only two out of these three.
I can tell you that 'local task should execute task for project in
local directory' because we have a specification that says exactly
that (build_spec.rb, line 21). If the local task doesn't execute for
project in local directory, then the code is wrong and the test is
wrong (for not revealing it), but the spec is still right. So you
patch the test, and you patch the code to pass the test, but you don't
patch the spec. The spec is the behavior we agreed upon.
That is a significant different from unit tests. Unit tests have
code, which may be wrong, and tests which may also be wrong, and
nothing that you can rely on to express what the right thing is.
When 1.3 comes out, we'll have one page on the Web site with the
formal Buildr specification generated from the files in the spec
directory. If the specs, code, tests and docs are in conflict, the
spec is always right. If we don't like the behavior, we change the
spec, but until we do that, the spec is right even if the tests are
wrong.
So there's is a significant difference between TDD and BDD, they're
not just two different ways to write test cases. One writes formal
specifications, the other doesn't.
Assaf
Matthieu
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Victor Hugo Borja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
Another one to
look at is JBehave, although I can't tell if they have any
conventions for directory structure.
Haven't used JBehave, IIRC the
jbehave.rb[1]<
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12376069/
jbehave.rb>from
John Layton just searches for *
Behaviour.class, compiled from src/test/java
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-49
--
vic
Quaerendo invenietis.
