Hi,

BDD and TDD stands for different purposes with different actors.
In BDD, stakeholders work on the functionalities of software units (coarse grain, black-box approach) whereas on TDD developers work on the object's features (fine-grain, white-box approach) that made the functionalities. So, the tooling in BDD should be different of the tooling used in TDD (BDD is more high-level than TDD).

In BDD each functionalities are describes as :

As a <role>
I want <some feature>
So that <I gain a benefit>

And the functionality is described in different scenarios (nominal and error ones) :
Given <some initial context>
When <an event occurs>
Then <ensure some outcomes>

Basic example:

As a customer,
I want to withdraw cash from an ATM,
so that I don�t have to wait in line at the bank.

Scenario 1: Account is in credit
Given the account is in credit
And the card is valid
And the dispenser contains cash
When the customer requests cash
Then ensure the account is debited
And ensure cash is dispensed
And ensure the card is returned

In fact, a useful and good BDD tool must provide :
Miguel Moquillon
Le 20/04/2015 12:02, Christophe Demarey a �crit�:
Hi,

With BDD a current test practice is to start method names with 'should'.
It is not yet possible in Pharo but easily do-able (update of TestCase and some Nautilus methods).
I would like that Pharo detects tes methods all methods of a class subclassing (directly or not) TestCase AND starting with either 'test' or 'should'.
I also would like to add 'deny' to not use 'shouldNot' but here I'm not sure.

WDYT?

Christophe.