Re: [boost] Interest in Behavior Driven Development Interface(again)

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-04 03:08:00

"Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:6adba9f0702021908t2cf6fcf5ia3d7a92229294faa_at_mail.gmail.com...
> So the real answer to the question is that nothing actually stops you
> from using the BOOST_CHECK or BOOST_REQUIRE macros in Boost.Test --
> I'm just looking to provide an alternative interface to defining
> specifications not only in Unit Tests, but also in different parts of
> the code. The goal really of the interface is for a novel "more
> English like" way of defining specifications, where it is explicit
> what the value being inspected is and what the expected behavior is.

So I understand you want to write a framework for men friendly runtime 
specification enorsement interfaces with configurable check and/or report 
agent.
This has almost nothing to do "Interaction based testing". Later is intended 
to test that for a given input particular interaction occurs (vs. "state 
based testing" that for given input validates that result match expected 
value).

One word of caution. The target audience for your framework are developers. 
And developers tend to be lazy and unwilling to learn anything new. There 
should be real advantage for developer to decide to write

value(arg).should.be_divisible_by(3);

instead of usual and always available

assert( arg%3 = 0 );

Gennadiy