In the preceding code, we add a bdd step function called add. This function name is important; the framework knows that when I add 3 and 6 gets mapped to this function. If you change the name of this function to “sum”, you’d need to update the feature file to say, when I sum 3 and 6 together. We then perform our logic and store it in the context so that we can recall it later.
We then define a check function that is our actual test; it validates our assertions. Finally, we set up a test suite to run our code.
If you run the preceding test, it should pass.
This might be your first time seeing a BDD-style test, but I bet it’s not your first time seeing a unit test. Why is that?
As you can see, although BDD tests are closer to natural language, it pushes a lot of the complexity down into the tests. The preceding example we used is trivial, but if you want to express complex scenarios (such as the cookie example we used previously) there is a lot of scaffolding the developer needs to implement to make the tests work correctly. This can be worthwhile if you have lots of access to your domain experts and you are truly going to work side by side. However, if they are absent or not invested in the process, unit tests are much faster and more engaging for engineering teams to work with. Much like DDD, BDD is a multidisciplinary team investment, and it is worth ensuring you have buy-in from all stakeholders before investing too much time in it.