In a previous blog post I wrote about a trick on how to remove technical ids from Gherkin scenarios while still using technical ids in the step definitions. The proposed solution worked well for the given scenario, but not for other cases. In this post I look at several approaches on how to solve this issue.
I use Gherkin scenarios to describe the functional specifications of my software and SpecFlow to automate these scenarios as tests. Usually there will be a couple of scenarios describing the happy path of the feature I’m building but also some scenarios concerning failures. In this post I’ll show my solution how to handle failures in the form of exceptions with the Driver pattern.
Gherkin scenarios in Specification by Example are used to describe the functional requirements of your software. They should be readable for the team and also for the business that uses the software. Technical ids don’t have a place here. They’re usually included in scenarios for test automation purposes but make the them harder to read. So, what to do when your code requires a technical id?
I still come across a lot of automated tests with many lines of code just to create an object. Even when most data is not relevant for the scenario being tested.
