https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/developwithpassion_bdd

Sorry about that!

mO

any thoughts?

What can I say? You are right!

It’s about “solubility”, right? I suppose I got so used to staring at my own code, that I forget what it’s like to view it from another perspective.

Thanks for your fresh perspective,

Mo

What’s “sut”?

P.S.: If I gotta ask, then it needs to be renamed. If I follow Toyota’s “Objective of the Objective” exercise I can arrive at a clearer answer.

The issue is: you believe that “sut” is sufficient to communicate to me, who has never seen this code and who is scanning it, what the subject of the specification is.

Your concern as a coder of this test may in fact be the “system under test”. But I don’t know what that system is because as a user, I’m not in the same context when I read that code as you are.

My concern is quickly gaining knowledge. The spec as written has usability challenges in this regard.

The objective is the “sut”. Granted. What is the objective of the “sut”? The Objective of the Objective here will satisfy your needs as well as mine. If you code for yourself, you might as well keep your code on your own hard drive and not share it with others. It’s like creating a user interface flow that only you have an intimate understanding of at first glance, forcing others to decipher the intended experience.

If “sut” is an order, call it “order”. If “sut” is a dog, call it “dog”. If “sut” is a shopping cart, call it “shopping cart”.

The level of abstractness achieved is certainly laudable, but abstractness isn’t the objective that best serves humans. Productivity not only doesn’t come from abstractness, it’s often damaged by it.