I have received a number of good responses from people who have a couple of aesthetic issues with the BDD style naming that I am starting to use. Let me clarify, I have been using the natural sentence style test naming since Scott introduced me to it in earlier in the year. I have not used the context/specification style test naming on a project yet, though it is my intent to write each successive test from this point forward in that style and if I feel pain points I will let you know.
From my experience so far here are some tips that I think will resolve the issues that the people who are trying to use it will find:
Issue 1 - 'I ended up really not liking those fixture names because I felt it was hard to find fixtures for specific classes, and navigate with Resharper Type navigation. Was wondering what naming convention you came up with for fixtures?'
A: My recommendation for this is to create a single test class in your test project called $SystemUnderTest$Specs. Where SystemUnderTest corresponds to the name of the class that you will be testing. This is just a grouping construct for all of the 'Contexts' that will be run against that fixture. Inside the 'Specs' class, you will create classes for each of the different contexts. Here is an example of one that I just rewrote the tests for the ShoppingCart class is the nothinbutdotnetweb.app project using this new style and I personally have to say that it was an awesome experience. One of the things that I found was that I could copy the body of one fixture and change the name to reflect the new context and I could focus solely on the interactions and behaviour that is pertinent to that particular context. Take a look at the Report that is generated when run against the specs in the ShoppingCartSpecs class:
One of the things you will notice about the tests in these fixtures compared to the others in the rest of the project (so far) is the use of Setup to stress the context setup. I added a virtual method to the AutoMockingTest base called because, which calls out the action being invoked on the SUT.
This actually resulted is some tests that contained no body whatsoever, and the ones with assertions actually only needed one assertion.
This is a learning experience for me to, but so far, I am loving the expressiveness and focus this style of testing brings to the table.
By grouping all of the fixtures into the ShoppingCartSpecs class, you can solve the navigability issue.
The second issue I received was:
'Quick question ... while the idea is great, it doesn;t flow for me, as ReSharper keeps cutting in and completing my words for me - Intellisence is great, but in this context is is annoying as hell ...
How do you avoid this problem?'
A - This is actually a ReSharper setting that I have had turned off pretty much since I started using ReSharper:
That's it. Now you can write you natural sentences without ReSharper getting in your way. Since I have been without this setting since ReSharpers inception, I have gotten quick at using ALT-SPACE/CTRL-ALT-SPACE a lot, this may take a bit of getting used to for the people who were use to the Letters and Digits autocompletion behaviour.
Again, as far as quickly navigating to the tests for a sut, you can just go CTRL-SHIFT-N and then start typing in the significant letters for the Spec class, in this case it would be:
CTRL-SHIFT-N -> SCS
Because all of the fixtures will be contained in the file but there will be no ShoppingCartSpecs type. I guess you could create one as a nesting construct, but that is what the file is for.
Again, let me stress that this Context/Specification style naming is a little new for me, and there is a possibility that the tests in the ShoppingCartSpecs that have no assertions could be a smell (I'll get that verified by Scott in a little while), I already see the benefits from both the documentation perspective as well as the ability to truly only focus on one specific context at a time.
Develop With Passion.