All Posts

Where to position SpecFlow in the Test Pyramid?

Automated testing is an essential part of software development, and determining the appropriate scope for your tests is crucial. This is also true when automating Gherkin scenarios with SpecFlow (or Cucumber). In this post I explore the different levels of the test pyramid and describe my preferred level for SpecFlow tests.

Transform SpecFlow Table Column

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.

Handling exceptions in SpecFlow

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.

Handling technical ids in Gherkin with SpecFlow

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?

Cleaning Up Your Test Data Creation

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.