What differentiates StoryQ from other BDD Frameworks?

This page is a work in progress

There are a number of different BDD Frameworks available for .NET. Each have their own strengths, quirks, and intended modes of use. This page attempts to enumerate these so that you can decide whether StoryQ is right for you. However this kind of evaluation always has a degree of subjectivity, so please make your own investigations. Comments are very welcome!

The birth of StoryQ

StoryQ is intended to support the following situation:
  • Developers are ultimately the only stakeholders to check tests into source control.
    • StoryQ is an internal DSL
      • Developers can leverage intellisense and intellisense documentation
      • StoryQ is shipped as a single library DLL - nothing to install...
      • Tests are easy to refactor
      • There is less repetition / typing
  • Test results should be readable by all stakeholders.
    • Developers are responsible for ensuring that their narrative methods format well

StoryQ tests are not written in plain text

This section is still under development, sorry!! Go here for more reading: Home

Many BDD frameworks let developers and/or other stakeholders write tests in plain text. The framework then acts as an interpreter of this text, often by matching method names up with

Why StoryQ
Differences from other BDD frameworks
input = CODE
output is still "english"
Simplicity
portability
easy to distribute and run
DRY
Refactorable
Go back to the home page to continue reading

Last edited Feb 21, 2010 at 10:57 AM by robfe, version 6

Comments

No comments yet.