bddr

Minimalist BDD for Erlang, sans cucumbers

It's pronounced "better".

why?

• To enforce strictness as to what is being tested
• To allow groups of develpers to understand each other's test cases
• To eliminate init_per_* and end_per_* anti-patterns

how?

Here is a basic test with independent givens:

bddr:test([given_app_started(),
           given_user_in_db("user", "password")],

          fun([App,{User,Pass}]) ->
            when_user_logs_in(App, User, Pass) end,

          fun(Screen) ->
            "Welcome, User!" = welcome_text(Screen) end).

If that seems too raw to you, add some sugar in the form of macros:

-include_lib("bddr/include/bddr.hrl").

bddr:test(?Given() ->
            server_running() end,

          ?When(Server) ->
            i_query_server(Server, "hello") end,

          ?Then(Reply) ->
            {ok, "hello to you too!"} = Reply end,

          ?Teardown(Server) ->
             stop_server(Server) end)

Experimentally: ditch common test/eunit

Using bddr_suite:run_suite/1. Your test suite must export a common-test-like all/0 listing of test names.

test: compile
	@erl -shutdown_time 1 -noshell -pa deps/ebin -pa ebin -pa test \
	-eval 'bddr_suite:run_suite(my_test_SUITE).'

...so it doesn't do XYZ?

No, the implementation is intentionally minimal. It's the developer's responsibility to provide his/her abstractions for the tested components. Remember, your tests are just Erlang code. Make it readable and extensible for others. Be humane.

---

Additional copyrights

The test suite contains dynamic_compile.erl, copyright 2007 by Mats Cronqvist, Chris Newcombe, and Jacob Vorreuter, licensed under the MIT License.