Update better-gherkin.md #873
Conversation
Added an intermediate style between imperative and declarative
content/docs/bdd/better-gherkin.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## A third style | ||
|
|
||
| There is a style that is intermediate between these two. The exact values are specified in the scenario, but the way the user interacts with the system is not. This style uses stepdef tables with domain terms as the column headers. The step definitions can be reused for mulitple scenarios with different data in the table. In this example, the scenarios for free and paid subscribers use the same step defs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Few minor things to fix:
- Check your formatter here as lots of extra spaces are being added.
- Use
step definitionsinstead of stepdef mulitple* typo
Also these technical items are known as data tables not step definition tables
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Made the changes as you suggested. Thanks for the corrections.
content/docs/bdd/better-gherkin.md
Outdated
| | Title | For Subscription | | ||
| | Free Article 1 | Free | | ||
| | Paid Article 1 | Paid | | ||
| And user is logged in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if you're using a single table, maybe suffix it with as i.e. And the user is logged in as for both scenarios
content/docs/bdd/better-gherkin.md
Outdated
| And user is logged in | ||
| | User Name | Password | Subscription | | ||
| | [email protected] | validPassword123 | Paid | | ||
| When articles are displayed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This step would then become redundant in both scenarios
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was split on whether the login should become a separate scenario or not. I was matching the data in the imperative style
There would at least need to be a step that said the logged user had a paid.free subscription. Keeping that as a data table emphasizes that Subscription is a domain term.
I could write a section on splitting scenarios, which might come after this one.
Split off the login scenario from the display scenarios. The logon follows along with the first scenario on this page.
Add conjunctions to the scenarios.
|
I think this should meet what you asked for. Let me know if I am still missing something. Thanks. |
|
Hi @atdd-bdd Think there's still a couple of things to fix up. Missed your comment sorry |
Added an intermediate style between imperative and declarative
🤔 What's changed?
Added a third style between imperative and declarative
⚡️ What's your motivation?
It's good to have three perspectives on how to approach an issue. In many cases, the data in the scenario should be transparent. The third way allows for transparency, as well as reuse of the scenario in multiple contexts.
📋 Checklist: