Saturday, 20 November 2010

The Best Way to Apply BDD

I am currently in the process of rewriting a simple e-commerce application for one of my customers. The new version is implemented using Scala and the excellent Lift framework and is a rewrite of a six year old struts/JSP version. The core application is largely identical but I am adding a wide range of new and improved administration functions.

Typically I build a simple, well understood application such as this using ordinary TDD principles to create unit tests and drive out the code. I'd also usually add some fairly basic UI tests using something like Selenium or even just HtmlUnit to validate the front-end. However, I like to use these sorts of projects to explore better ways of doing things. I've therefore decided to use a Behaviour Driven Development approach using Aslak Helles√ły's excellent Cucumber framework. (I'll post more details on installing and using Cucumber and cuke4duke with sbt once I get it all figured out!)

In this post I want to explore some of my thinking about exactly how and where to use BDD within the project and the places where I want to integrate the Cucumber features and scenarios.

What To Use BDD For

I am a strong advocate of the TDD approach, and I intend to follow this within this development for the low level details (i.e. unit and component tests). I'm therefore looking at using BDD as a way of capturing the higher-level business requirements and acceptance criteria. My aim is to use BDD and Cucumber to ensure that the application I am building actually does what the business expects it to. Lower level tests will still be written using ScalaTest to ensure the code that I am writing does what I expect it to do and also to drive out the architectural and implementation details.

Where To Integrate BDD

Given this positioning for BDD, where I have been struggling is the correct level in my application to target the Cucumber step definitions (step definitions are the code that actually executes the scenario and conditions described by the behaviour). The following sections describe the different options I have considered and advantages and disadvantages of each:

BDD at the User Interface - In this approach the step definitions are implemented to execute against the running web application. This is usually achieved using a technology such as Selenium or HtmlUnit. Each scenario loads web pages, clicks links, fills and submits forms and makes assertions about the HTML documents and associated resources that are returned.

Advanages:

  • The behaviour is asserted across the complete application.
  • The BDD approach can be used to drive the development of the UI as well as the application logic.

Disadvanages:

  • You can only execute the feature steps against a built and deployed application - which may make development slower.
  • A web-based UI is usually the least stable part of a web application and thus feature steps may be broken as the UI is tweaked, making it appear that behaviour is being lost. Step definitions may become quite fragile.
  • Using BDD at this level may not fit well when user experience or visual designers are being used as this often results in rapid changing of the UI
  • Generally testing at this level requires a lot of boilerplate code to be written - which makes wringing BDD step definitions more complex.
  • Testing of web-based user interface may be better suited to a suite of UI tests that can focus just on verifying the UI display and interaction.

BDD at the Web Protocol - In this approach the step definitions are written to directly exercise the web protocol used to interface to the application. For example, the steps make HTTP calls to the application and assert that the returned results are correct and contain the expected content.

Advanages:

  • Does not need to worry about the complexities of web pages, javascript and so on that are perhaps better tested in a dedicated suite of UI tests.
  • Very well suited to RESTful or other web services that return structured data instead of HTML documents.

Disadvanages:

  • You can still only execute the feature steps against a built and deployed application
  • Building complex sequences of requests to simulate thinks such Ajax may be more complex than testing against the UI.
  • Asserting against returned HTML content may be more complex than using assertions in a framework like Selenium at the UI layer.
  • Building and testing at this layer requires that you also support a suite of UI tests.
  • For a web application, the interface at the HTTP layer may change quite frequently, requiring frequent changes to the step definitions. This will be particularly common in an Ajax heavy application.

BDD at the Controllers - In this approach, we ignore the UI and view parts of the application. Instead we wire up the whole application from the controllers/snippets layer down. Step definitions are then written that invoke the controllers/snippets with pre-defined requests and assert that the response action and data that would be used to generate a view is correct.

Advanages:

  • Features can be tested as part of the test phase of a build - no need to deploy.
  • Testing at this level tends to be more stable and less fragile as the application emerges.
  • It is usually much simpler to invoke and assert at a code level rather than a UI level

Disadvanages:

  • A good set of testing features is required by the chosen web framework, so that requests and responses can be easily simulated and asserted against.
  • Tests at this level tend to spend a significant portion of logic dedicated to the interactions with the UI rather than asserting against business rules.
  • A suite of UI tests is required in order to test the UI and these will also generally exercise the same controllers/snippets in order to drive the UI.

BDD at the Services - In this final approach we test behaviour at the level directly below the controller/snippet. This is usually testing against service level code, but may also require writing some step definitions against domain level objects. As this level we are much more interested in testing the business behaviour of the application rather than the behaviour of how the application interacts with the user.

Advanages:

  • Features can be tested as part of the test phase of a build - no need to deploy.
  • Code at this level will usually be more stable than at the higher levels, thus making the tests less brittle.
  • Step definitions at this level will usually be simpler to write and maintain than those written against the UI or controllers.
  • We are testing against actual business rules rather than how a user might interact with the application.
  • We require less testing specific tools and framework support.

Disadvanages:

  • Testing at this level exercises less of the application flow than the tests at higher levels.
  • A suite of tests is additionally required to validate the UI and the controllers to ensure that the user interaction with the system calls the services with the correct data in the correct order and correctly displays the results.
  • The business is more likely expecting the behaviour of how they interact with the application to be verified.
  • Developers must be VERY disciplined to ensure that no business rules, logic or behaviour is implemented in the controllers layer.

So, Where From Here?

After looking at all the possible places to use BDD and Cucumber, I have to draw the conclusion that there is no outright winner. It feels to me that the best mix is a combination of step definitions that test behaviour at the service layer (to verify business rules and behaviour) plus another set that test behaviour of the UI. By combining both of these approaches it should be possible to cover the application sufficiently to have confidence that its behaviour is correct.

This then leads me on to think about the best way to create the feature descriptions of the behaviour. Do we create a single description of the desired behaviour and then write two step definitions - one for the service layer and one for the UI? Or do we write a feature definition describing the required behaviour for the business services and then have an alternative behaviour specific for the user interaction with the system?

I'm still unsure of the correct answers to these questions. Anyone out there got any thoughts or experience? In the mean time I'm going to build my application trying both approaches and see which works out best.

4 comments:

  1. Any updates on how you went about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most recently I've been building RESTful http apps with single page webapp clients written in Javascript.I've been writing my BDD tests against the RESTful interface to the service and then just using ordinary unit testing for the Javascript app.

      In a more traditional MVC app my leaning is very much toward writing the BDD tests against the service layer. I've found that this stops business logic escaping into the controllers. These controllers can then be responsible for just orchestrating service calls and passing data to the view.

      I have tried BDD testing at the UI layer using a combination of Cucumber and Selenium. I found this a very poor way to work as the specifications became more about how to drive the website rather than testing business logic and behaviour. They also became very fragile as the page flow evolved and changed. I'd strong recommend against doing BDD at the user interface level.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your Reply. I am not sure if you are familiar with Microsofts UI Automation Framework. However, I have a Windows desktop application, build from MFC, that I am exploring options to automate/test and drive some development. I like the idea of BDD, however I guess I am a bit concerned as to having proper coverage on UI and Business logic through BDD scenarios.

      Delete
    3. Yes, that's an interesting challenge. I would certainly consider some form of dedicated non-BDD tests for exercising the UI as I've always found capturing these sort of interactions difficult in a BDD style. What you absolutely want to avoid is ending up with some form of BDD scenario that reads like a user interaction script. E.g.:

      Given I select the File -> New menu option
      And I select the Fast Templates option
      When I pick Invoice from the dropdown list
      And click the OK button
      Then a new Invoice document is displayed

      This is a really bad idea and results in BDD scenarios that are really fragile and difficult to maintain. I've seen this attempted on a couple of projects and it never worked. It's far better to capture this sort of sequence of interactions in a more traditional test.

      You can then if you wish encapsulate these interactions into a BDD scenario to write some higher level business tests, something like:

      Given I have created a new Invoice document
      When I add a item '12345' to the Invoice
      Then the Invoice total is updated to be '£159.99'

      Delete