Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
A common story
Story: User logging in
As a user
I want to login with my details
So that I can get access to the site
Given such a broad coverage, it is useless if I mock the system components such as DB in order to perform the test, so can I say that people mainly use BDD in integration test?
Here's my terminology.
Scenario: an example of the user using the system, with all relevant components in place rather than mocked out. May be automated and used as an acceptance test, but the conversations between business, testers and devs are the most important aspect of BDD. Often created using the Given / When / Then template, sometimes in tools which allow for natural language capture such as Cucumber or JBehave.
Integration test: Crosses the boundary of two components, and usually used to check the integrity of integration of those components. For instance, may be used to send messages back and forth between the client and server layers of a web interface, or to check database bindings with Hibernate, etc.. Does not necessarily involve the full stack. A scenario could be considered a particular kind of integration test. BDD doesn't really apply for most non-scenario integration tests, though you could still conceivably use the Given / When / Then template.
Unit test: An example of a consuming class using another class, usually with collaborators mocked out. May also be an example of how a consuming class delegates work to its collaborators. That's how we talk about it in BDD, anyway (you can do BDD at both levels). Can also use the Given / When / Then syntax.
Story: A slice through a feature to allow us to get faster feedback. The behavior of a feature may be illustrated with several scenarios, and these can also be used to help slice up the feature. Often illustrated with the As a... I want... So that... template, or the In order to... as a... I want... template of Feature Injection.
Feature: Features represent the way in which users will use the capabilities we’re giving them. This is the stage in which we start defining the concrete implementation and UI. A feature may be a web page, part of a web page, a module in a windows UI, part of an app, etc.
Capability: Something a user can achieve with the system, or which the system can achieve. Ie: A user can book a trade, the system is secure enough to withstand hackers. Phrasing scenarios at this level helps them be independent of the UI and keeps them in the language of the business.
Hope this helps.
Your example is a user story, which describes acceptance test. Acceptance tests could have end-to-end scope, but not necessarily. Core difference between acceptance and integration tests, is what they are focused on. Acceptance test is business-focused and could be written/read by non-technical person (customer). On the other hand we have development-focused integration tests, which simply verify that two or more components could work together.
Back to BDD. It could be used in acceptance testing (feature level) and unit testing (code level). There are even different tools for different levels of BDD:
SpecFlow (acceptance testing)
NSpec, NBehave (unit testing)
Behaviour Driven Development is thinking about the behaviour of a product in a given scenario. It extends both Test Driven Development and Domain Driven Design. Also BDD is thinking beyond integration test. BDD is about maximizing the communication between the Users, Developers, Testers, Managers and Analysts.
Integration Testing is considered as a step of BDD. Integration testing can also exist out of the context of BDD. As integration testing can be used to cover high-level behaviour of your application without dropping into the unit testing.
Behaviour is about the interactions between components of the system and so the use of mocking is fundamental to advanced TDD. Expertise in TDD begins to dawn at the point where the developer realizes that TDD is about defining behaviour rather than testing.
A user story may have a broad scope, as it is always a priority of developing human friendly software. It combines the pragmatic approach of Extreme Programming with Enough Up Front Thinking based on Macro Level Analysis to enable Macro Level Planning.
Integration Testing is what we are using BDD for mainly - UI tests with Selenium. Although actually we are not mocking anything with these tests as the BDD Scenarios are used to drive SpecFlow to in turn drive Selenium Webdriver to perform user-journeys such as logging in, clicking menu links, creating records. In fact I'm trying my hardest to do everything through the UI where possible.
I have been working towards and with the Business Analysts to write their user stories in a BDD fashion (in fact it is now in our contract with clients) and it has been very refreshing and useful to find that during the writing of stories in a BDD fashion, we discover edge-cases that might not otherwise have been thought when we extrapolate the requirements into atomic steps (Given, When, Then). It truly is a win-win scenario for both the business and the developers' perspective when we have a more common language to express requirements.
Related
I am struggling with the concept of BDD mixed in with TDD at the moment, particularly when tests overlap.
Such as let’s say I have a unit test verifying that when I add two numbers together it returns the sum. Next unit test says that when I multiply two numbers together, it returns the product.
The requirement from the customer is that they must be able to multiply and add numbers at the same time. Writing this Behavior test effectively overlaps the two unit tests, already testing those features. There’s a good chance that a behavior test like this could identify a problem with the requirement of being able to add and multiply at the same time... so I feel it is useful.
But I feel like some people may consider this test redundant, because like I said it is technically overlapping unit tests... is this normal and acceptable?
Also, what about behavior tests that are using mocks and not the real system? Looking online it appears there’s no harsh requirements on that, but I feel if the scenario is specific enough it’s perfectly fine to use mocks?
When you use BDD and TDD together, there will be some overlap. However both are used for two different purposes. BDD should not be used just as a Test framework. BDD is mainly used for cross functional collaboration. In BDD Teams collaborate and derive real world examples written in natural language. This shared understanding, is then, only then, is taken and automated.
The scenarios that BDD typically covers are end to end process. As part of BDD, the session in your tests are shared. For an example, you could have a following scenario:
Given the users login successfully
When the user applies for a job
Then a job application number should be returned
In the above scenario, in the Given step, the underlying scripts could call a login API to get the token and passes it on to subsequent steps. In other words the state is shared. Also in the above scenario, database or a website or a REST endpoint or MQ or any endpoint/interface could be called to send and verify the results.
Whereas in TDD, the session is not shared and all external endpoints/databases are mocked. Only the functionality of the code is tested. When both BDD and TDD are used, you are bound to have some overlaps. In the above example, you could have a TDD that tests only the login functionality by say mocking the REST API that validates the login.
As I have mentioned above, you shouldn't consider BDD as a test framework but as a collaboration tool and automation comes as great benefit.
Here is an article I put together which explains the difference between TDD and BDD
https://blog.nocodebdd.com/bdd-vs-tdd/
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
For any software project testing is important. I am new to testing so how can I test a developed software project? . What are the steps and levels of testing? I wanted to know how the software projects will be tested in companies?
wikipedia has a good article on Software Testing, and will be better than anything I write here. However, I'll try to describe the process at the higest level:
At the highest level you have perhaps three types of tests:
unit tests - tests for individual units (eg: functions, methods). If you give function A the inputs x, y and z, does it return the right value? These are cheap, easy and fast, and help you to understand that individual units of code work precisely as they are designed to work.
system tests - do the individual units work together? This is where you test the business logic of your application, and to test the contract between units ("if you provide the arguments x,y,z I'll return A" and "if you give me the wrong arguments I'll raise error B"). These help you to understand whether the individual units work together to accomplish a task.
performance tests. Performance in this context could mean raw speed, or it could mean capacity ("can the website handle 1 million hits per day?"), system load, latency, etc.
unit tests are most often done using a framework called junit (for java), nunit (j.net), or something similar. There's probably an *unit framework for whatever language you are using. Many software shops use their own custom tool to do this. Most often (but not exclusively), unit tests are written by the developer that wrote the unit.
system tests can take many forms, and there's not always a single solution that will work for a particular application. For example, if your site is a web site you can have service layer tests ("if I call the web API of my site, does it return the right value") and presentation layer ("if I click on the button in the UI, does the form get posted to the proper URL?) tests.
While unit tests are almost always automated, system level tests can be automated, manual, or a combination of automated and manual. User interface testing is often a manual process. While there are tools to drive the UI for a variety of types of applications, ultimately it's a very difficult problem to automatically answer questions like "does this look right?" and "Is this easy to use?". Those types of questions almost always have to be answered by a human trained to answer such questions.
Performance tests are almost exclusively automated, though any easy way to do performance testing is simply to time your automated system tests and watch the trends, and also watch system metrics such as CPU and memory utilization while your system tests are running. This isn't an ideal performance testing strategy, but it's good enough if you're just starting out.
So, to get started with testing, see if there is a unit testing framework already available for your language. You can then quickly come up with a body of tests for the individual units. You can then start looking for what are commonly called "testing frameworks" for the system tests. There are many, many frameworks to choose from. There is no "best", so don't get too caught up in finding the perfect tool. Pick any tool that works for your language and start using it.
Fundamentally there are these things going on:
Understand what the software is supposed to do.
Decide how to verify that it does.
Agree your test strategy with the stake-holders: there should be people who care about whether you are testing the right things, they need to have confidence that you are doing so.
Perform the verification
Report the results, accurately, in enough detail to allow problems to be fixed
The details depend upon the nature of the software. For example what would you do if the software didn't have a UI? Or if it has a UI, there are almost certain to be other things (eg. modules which load data from external systems) you need to test too, what proportion of time will you spend on those?
There's a strong likelihood that some parts of the testing you decide is appropriate will need to be repeated as new releases of the software are made. You can make a distinction between "testing" and the subset which is "re-checking" and there may be value in automating the re-checking aspects.
One thing to bear in mind: I'm very suspicious of an attempt to reduce testing to a simple set of "steps". You might look at contextual testing for an explanation.
As we know, TDD means "write the test first, and then write the code". And when it comes to unit-testing, this is fine, because you are limited within the "unit".
However when it comes to UI, writing functional tests beforehand makes less sense (to me). This is because the functional tests have to verify a (possibly long) set of functional requirements. This may usually span multiple screens (pages), preconditions like "logged in", "having recently inserted a record", etc.
According to Wikipedia:
Test-driven development is difficult to use in situations where full functional tests are required to determine success or failure. Examples of these are user interfaces, programs that work with databases, and some that depend on specific network configurations.
(Of course, Wikipedia is no "authority", but this sounds very logical.)
So, any thoughts, or better - experience, with functional tests-first for UI, and then code. Does it work? And is it "pain"?
Try BDD, Behavior Driven Development. It promotes writing specification stories which are then executed step by step stimulating the app to change it's state and verify the outcomes.
I use BDD scenarios to write UI code. Business requests are described using BDD stories and then the functionality is being written to turn the stories i.e. tests green.
The key to testing a UI is to separate your concerns - the behavior of your UI is actually different than the appearance of your UI. We struggle with this mentally, so as an exercise take a game like Tetris and imagine porting it from one platform (say PC) to another (the web). The intuition is that everything is different - you have to rewrite everything! But in reality all this is the same:
The rules of the game.
The speed of the blocks falling.
The logic for rows matching
Which block is chosen
And more...
You get the idea. The only thing that changes is how the screen is drawn. So separate how your UI looks from how it works. This is tricky, and usually can't be perfect, but it's close. My recommendation is to write the UI last. Tests will provide the feedback if your behavior is working, and the screen will tell if it looks right. This combination provides the fast feedback we're looking for from TDD without a UI.
TDD for functional tests makes sense to me. Write a functional test, see it failing, then divide the problem into parts, write a unit test for each part, write code for each part, see unit tests pass and then your functional test should pass.
Here is a workflow suggested in the book Test-Driven Development with Python by Harry Percival (available online for free):
P.S. You can automate your functional tests using e.g. Selenium. You can add them to the Continuous Integration cycle as well as unit tests.
ATDD is very useful if you have a very good grasp on how the UI should behave and also ensure that the cost of change to the functional tests that you build upfront is less.
The biggest problem with doing this, of course, is most often the UI is not fully speced out.
For example, if you are building a product, and are still doing rapid iterations of getting a UI that goes through a usability testing and the feedback incorporated, you do not want the baggage of fixing your functional tests with every small change to the UI.
Given that functional tests are generally slow, the feedback cycle is high and its very painful to keep them green with the changes to UI.
I work on a product team where we had this exact same decision to make. A colleague of mine has summarized our final approach very well here. (Disclaimer: Please ignore the tool specific details there.)
I've done Acceptance TDD with a UI. We would assert the common header and footer were used via xpath'ing for the appropriate ids. We also used xpath to assert the data appeared in the correct tag relative to whatever ids we used for basic layout and structure. We would also assert the output page is valid html 4.01 strict.
Programmatic UI tests is a salvation when you want to be confident your UI does what expected. The UI tests are closer to BDD (behavior driven development) than to TDD. But the terminology is cloudy and however you call 'em they are useful!
I have got rather good experience using cucumber. I use it to test flex applications but it's mostly used to test web apps. Click the link! The site have got really nice examples of methodology.
Advanced UI is not compatible with straight TDD.
Use XP practices to guide you.
It is unwise to slavishly follow TDD (or even BDD) for UI, it's worth thinking about the root goals of both practices. In particular, we want to avoid using general purpose TDD tools for UI. (If) They're simply not designed for that use case, you end up binding yourself to tests that you have to iterate on as rapidly as the UI code (I call this, UI test-lock).
That's not the purpose of TDD. We don't do it to go slower, we use to go fast (and NOT break things!).
We want to achieve a few things with TDD:
Code / Algorithmic Correctness
Minimal code to complete a test
Fast feedback
Architectural separation of concerns to the units (modular parts under test, no more, no less)
Formalize specification in a useful/usable way
To some extent, document what the module/system does (e.g. provide an example of use.)
We can achieve these goals in UI development, but how and where we apply practices is important to avoid test-lock.
Applying these principles to UI
What benefits can we get from testing UI? How can we avoid test-lock.
With usual TDD one major benefit is that we can think about the abstractions, and generally design the shape of a test subject, as we think of names, relationships etc.
For UI, much of what we want to do, especially if it's non-trivial, is only reasoned about effectively when we can see it manifested on screen.
Writing tests that describe what we expect to see in a UI, specifically what data, can be TDD tested. For example, if we have a view that should show an account balance, a test that expects it to appear in an on-screen element that can be addressed by some form of ID, is good. We will know our app/view is displaying content that's expected, in standard UI library elements.
If, on the other hand, we want to create a more complex UI and wish to apply TDD to it, we will have some problems. Chances are, we won't even know how to code it, if it's novel enough.
For this we would prototype and iterate with tools which give us fast feedback, but don't saddle us with any need to write tests first. When we reach a point where implementation becomes clear, we can then switch up to test first for the production code.
This keeps us fast. Designers and Product owners in the team can also see results, provide inputs, and tweaks.
The code should be well-formed. As soon as we identify small potential pieces which will make it to production code, we can migrate them to be under test. Using TCR or a similar method to add tests, or simply use the TDD method to re-write. Remember once it works, you can apply snapshot/record-playback testing, to keep regression errors at bay.
Do what works, keep it simple.
Addendum
Notes about the scope of UI discussed above
There will be a need to figure out how to make things work as expected in any advanced UI. There is also a likelihood that specs change and tweak in extremely arbitrary / capricious ways. We need to ensure any tests we apply to these test subjects are flexible, or extremely easy to re-generate based on a working model. (replay tests are gold for this.)
Good development practices, in a nutshell, code separation. Is going to help you ensure the code is at least testable, and simpler to debug, maintain and reason about.
Don't be a slave to ritual.
It doesn't make you correct. Just slower.
I am a complete newbie to BDD and I would like to understand where does it come into play in a development cycle. In TDD approaches, we would write unit-tests commonly for libraries or apis, we would mock objects and that was great because it could even drive our design. These tests would be written before the actual code which is nice.
I understand that BDD is more about spec/scenario testing and I can see that it is a perfect fit to test a business requirement against the actual code. But what is the best practice for writing these tests? Do we still keep writing individual tests (as in TDD) mocking out dependencies and writing unit-tests for every single thing that could go wrong? Then write our bdd tests? Do we write the bdd tests first? Do we write only bdd tests even against individual components?
I use .NET and usually write asp.net mvc apps but this is more of a theory question and independent of the underlying programming language.
Thanks a lot.
Don't know about the right way but this is my experience. After analyzing the specification document I try to extract as many different 'stories' and describe them using BDD stories files. As you already know every sentence should start with either one of three keywords given, when and then.
After translating the whole specification to BDD test stories I write a class that implement steps i.e. execute each one of sentences used in stories.
Next step is starting writing an implementation which will be called by methods that execute script sentences by setting initial state (given), state transitions (when) and checking the destination state of the app (then).
Whenever I need to implement an actual class method I use TDD to do a thorough testing in isolation.
Of course, in order to run the test part of the code that is not yet implemented may be temporarily mocked.
BDD is a set of patterns around describing and building models of the behaviour of a system (and, at a higher level, a project vision) which can help us to have conversations about that behaviour, for various levels of granularity.
We use conversational patterns like "Given a context, when this event happens then this outcome should occur", and encourage questions like, "Should it? Always? Are there any other contexts we're missing?"
We can do that at a unit level, a scenario level or even into the analysis space.
I tend to work from the highest level inwards. Here's an article I wrote which describes what that looks like, right the way from project vision to unit tests.
The first bit of code I write will be the scenarios. Here are some scenarios written without any BDD frameworks, just plain old NUnit, showing how you can make these English-readable with domain language, etc.
Then I start with the User Interface. This could be a GUI, web-page, or an interface for another system to use my system. When this is done I can get feedback on whether my users like it. I frequently hard-code data, etc., just so that I can get that feedback.
Once I know roughly what my GUI will look like, I can start creating the behaviour behind it. I usually start with the behaviour of the controller. I will write class-level examples which describe the class's behaviour and responsibilities. I use mocks in place of collaborating classes I haven't written yet. This is the equivalent of TDD, but rather than writing tests which pin the code down so that nobody breaks it, I'm writing examples of how you can use my code, which show how it behaves and why it's valuable so that you can change it safely. I also use Given / When / Then for this! But I tend to use more technical language and don't worry about it being English-readable. Frequently my Given / When / Then are just in comments. Here's an example of class behaviour from the same codebase as the scenarios, so you can see what the difference is.
Hope this helps, and good luck with the BDD!
You can use it similarly as TDD, unit testing or otherwise. The difference is gonna come from testing "Business Behavior". Spec Flow and Features is one option, unit testing syntax would look something like this
[Given(#"a user exists with username ""(.*)"" and password ""(.*)""")]
public void GivenAUserExistsWithUsernameAdminAndPasswordPassword(string userName, string password) {
}
[Then(#"that user should be able to login using ""(.*)"" and ""(.*)""")]
public void ThenThatUserShouldBeAbleToLoginUsingAdminAndPassword(string userName, string password) {
Assert.IsTrue(_authService.IsValidLogin(userName, password));
}
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Test Driven Development has been the rage in the .NET community for the last few years. Recently, I have heard grumblings in the ALT.NET community about BDD. What is it? What makes it different from TDD?
I understand BDD to be more about specification than testing. It is linked to Domain Driven Design (don't you love these *DD acronyms?).
It is linked with a certain way to write user stories, including high-level tests. An example by Tom ten Thij:
Story: User logging in
As a user
I want to login with my details
So that I can get access to the site
Scenario: User uses wrong password
Given a username 'jdoe'
And a password 'letmein'
When the user logs in with username and password
Then the login form should be shown again
(In his article, Tom goes on to directly execute this test specification in Ruby.)
The pope of BDD is Dan North. You'll find a great introduction in his Introducing BDD article.
You will find a comparison of BDD and TDD in this video. Also an opinion about BDD as "TDD done right" by Jeremy D. Miller
March 25, 2013 update
The video above has been missing for a while. Here is a recent one by Llewellyn Falco, BDD vs TDD (explained). I find his explanation clear and to the point.
To me primary difference between BDD and TDD is focus and wording. And words are important for communicating your intent.
TDD directs focus on testing. And since in "old waterfall world" tests come after implementation, then this mindset leads to wrong understanding and behaviour.
BDD directs focus on behaviour and specification, and so waterfall minds are distracted. So BDD is more easily understood as design practice and not as testing practice.
There seem to be two types of BDD.
The first is the original style that Dan North discusses and which caused the creation of the xBehave style frameworks. To me this style is primarily applicable for acceptance testing or specifications against domain objects.
The second style is what Dave Astels popularised and which, to me, is a new form of TDD which has some serious benefits. It focuses on behavior rather than testing and also small test classes, trying to get to the point where you basically have one line per specification (test) method. This style suits all levels of testing and can be done using any existing unit testing framework though newer frameworks (xSpec style) help focus one the behavior rather than testing.
There is also a BDD group which you might find useful:
http://groups.google.com/group/behaviordrivendevelopment/
Test-Driven Development is a test-first software development methodology, which means that it requires writing test code before writing the actual code that will be tested. In Kent Beck’s words:
The style here is to write a few lines of code, then a test that
should run, or even better, to write a test that won't run, then write
the code that will make it run.
After figuring out how to write one small piece of code, now, instead of just coding on, we want to get immediate feedback and practice "code a little, test a little, code a little, test a little." So we immediately write a test for it.
So TDD is a low-level, technical methodology that programmers use to produce clean code that works.
Behaviour-Driven Development is a methodology that was created based on TDD, but evolved into a process that doesn’t concern only programmers and testers, but instead deals with the entire team and all important stakeholders, technical and non-technical. BDD started out of a few simple questions that TDD doesn’t answer well: how much tests should I write? What should I actually test—and what shouldn’t I? Which of the tests I write will be in fact important to the business or to the overall quality of the product, and which are just my over-engineering?
As you can see, such questions require collaboration between technology and business. Business stakeholders and domain experts often can tell engineers what kind of tests sound like they would be useful—but only if the tests are high-level tests that deal with important business aspects. BDD calls such business-like tests “examples,” as in “tell me an example of how this feature should behave correctly,” and reserves the word “test” for low-level, technical checks such as data validation or testing API integrations. The important part is that while tests can only be created by programmers and testers, examples can be collected and analysed by the entire delivery team—by designers, analysts, and so on.
In a sentence, one of the best definitions of BDD I have found so far is that BDD is about “having conversations with domain experts and using examples to gain a shared understanding of the desired behaviour and discover unknowns.” The discovery part is very important. As the delivery team collects more examples, they start to understand the business domain more and more and thus they reduce their uncertainty about some aspects of the product they have to deal with. As uncertainty decreases, creativity and autonomy of the delivery team increase. For instance, they can now start suggesting their own examples that the business users didn’t think were possible because of their lack of tech expertise.
Now, having conversations with the business and domain experts sounds great, but we all know how that often ends up in practice. I started my journey with tech as a programmer. As programmers, we are taught to write code—algorithms, design patterns, abstractions. Or, if you are a designer, you are taught to design—organize information and create beautiful interfaces. But when we get our entry-level jobs, our employers expect us to "deliver value to the clients." And among those clients can be, for example... a bank. But I could know next to nothing about banking—except how to efficiently decrease my account balance. So I would have to somehow translate what is expected of me into code... I would have to build a bridge between banking and my technical expertise if I want to deliver any value. BDD helps me build such a bridge on a stable foundation of fluid communication between the delivery team and the domain experts.
Learn more
If you want to read more about BDD, I wrote a book on the subject. “Writing Great Specifications” explores the art of analysing requirements and will help you learn how to build a great BDD process and use examples as a core part of that process. The book talks about the ubiquitous language, collecting examples, and creating so-called executable specifications (automated tests) out of the examples—techniques that help BDD teams deliver great software on time and on budget.
If you are interested in buying “Writing Great Specifications,” you can save 39% with the promo code 39nicieja2 :)
I have experimented a little with the BDD approach and my premature conclusion is that BDD is well suited to use case implementation, but not on the underlying details. TDD still rock on that level.
BDD is also used as a communication tool. The goal is to write executable specifications which can be understood by the domain experts.
With my latest knowledge in BDD when compared to TDD, BDD focuses on specifying what will happen next, whereas TDD focuses on setting up a set of conditions and then looking at the output.
Behaviour Driven Development seems to focus more on the interaction and communication between Developers and also between Developers and testers.
The Wikipedia Article has an explanation:
Behavior-driven development
Not practicing BDD myself though.
Consider the primary benefit of TDD to be design. It should be called Test Driven Design. BDD is a subset of TDD, call it Behaviour Driven Design.
Now consider a popular implementation of TDD - Unit Testing. The Units in Unit Testing are typically one bit of logic that is the smallest unit of work you can make.
When you put those Units together in a functional way to describe the desired Behaviour to the machines, you need to understand the Behaviour you are describing to the machine. Behaviour Driven Design focuses on verifying the implementers' understanding of the Use Cases/Requirements/Whatever and verifies the implementation of each feature. BDD and TDD in general serves the important purpose of informing design and the second purpose of verifying the correctness of the implementation especially when it changes. BDD done right involves biz and dev (and qa), whereas Unit Testing (possibly incorrectly viewed as TDD rather than one type of TDD) is typically done in the dev silo.
I would add that BDD tests serve as living requirements.
It seems to me that BDD is a broader scope. It almost implies TDD is used, that BDD is the encompassing methodology that gathers the information and requirements for using, among other things, TDD practices to ensure rapid feedback.
In short there is major difference between TDD and BDD
In TDD we are majorly focused on Test data
In BDD our main focus is on behavior of the project so that any non - programming person can understand the line of code on the behalf of the title of that method
There is no difference between TDD and BDD. except you can read your tests better, and you can use them as requirements. If you write your requirements with the same words as you write BDD tests then you can come from your client with some of your tests defined ready to write code.
Here's the quick snapshot:
TDD is just the process of testing code before writing it!
DDD is the process of being informed about the Domain before each cycle of touching code!
BDD is an implementation of TDD which brings in some aspects of DDD!