Purist vs. Pragmatist

There’s often more than one way to solve a problem. Engineers tend to be pretty opinionated about solutions, too. Whenever I see disagreements in design, I typically notice two competing stances: the pragmatist and the purist. Identifying these approaches helps to understand how others think and fosters healthier team collaboration.

purist is one who focuses primarily on the correctness of a solution. They typically seek a systematic, comprehensive, and verifiable design. A pragmatist, however, favors practical, expedient solutions. They are okay with a solution so long as it works.

The table below gives some perspective on how these two perspectives may differ:

Purist Pragmatist
Focus more on what is correct Focus more on what is expedient
Spend more effort on design and the “big picture” Spend more effort on implementation
Very picky in code review Less picky in code review
Interested more in white-box code quality Interested more in black-box code quality
Favors strong design patterns, even if they are complicated Favors simpler design patterns, even if they have less-than-desirable consequences
Prefers to redesign than to hack Prefers to hack than to redesign
Good at handling long-term problems Good at handling short-term problems
Views software development as an art as well as an engineering practice Views development primarily as an engineering practice
Aligns well with academia Aligns well with business
In test automation, better for framework development In test automation, better for test case development

These descriptions are not absolute: many people fall somewhere between the poles of purist and pragmatist. However, most people tend to exhibit stronger tendencies in one direction.

Personally, I tend to be a purist. If I need to get a job done, I feel shameful if I cannot afford the time to do it fully properly. However, I often find myself working with pragmatists. That’s not a bad thing – I recognize the value in each perspective. There is much to learn from both sides!

‑‑BDD; Automation without Collaboration

Does it make sense to use a BDD test automation framework on a team that does not follow a Behavior-Driven Development process? I’ve faced this questions a few times recently. Although some BDD benefits will be missing, the answer is still yes, BDD test automation frameworks are still useful apart from a full BDD process. This article covers strengths and weaknesses to explain why.


BDD test frameworks force tests to be behavior-driven, not procedure-driven. Behavior-driven tests focus on individual behaviors, making them concise and comprehensible. Impertinent factors are removed from test cases. Imperative details are specified only when necessary. Test reports are more descriptive, and test results are more meaningful. Tests written without a behavior-driven framework are more likely to become long, unnecessarily complicated, and fragile.

BDD test frameworks also provide inherent structure with steps. Steps are the basic building blocks of test cases, regardless of the type of test automation framework used. While almost all run-of-the-mill test frameworks (like JUnit,, or pytest) provide structure to write separate, independent test cases (usually as methods or functions), they lack structure to write separate test case steps. Typically, programmers end up writing test case logic directly into the test methods/functions, or they write ad hoc helper methods/functions/classes to get the job done. This approach often lacks consistency (especially when multiple engineers contribute to the automation code), and thus reusability suffers and duplication creeps in. Gherkin steps are like guide rails for test cases.

Gherkin steps provide easy reusability for rapid development. In a mature automation code base, new test cases can be written using a few short lines of pre-existing steps. And pre-existing steps can be trusted to work because they’ve been tested before. Parametrized steps enable even greater reuse.

Gherkin steps are self-documenting because they are written in plain English. This makes tests easier to do many things:

  • to write, because it provides an outline for the test in plain language
  • to review, because others less familiar with the feature can quickly understand concise scenarios
  • to maintain, because problems can be pinpointed
  • to explain, because non-technical people can’t read code

Much like any other test frameworks, BDD frameworks integrate with other testing packages and design patterns. For example, it is common to use a BDD framework with Selenium WebDriver and the Page Object Model to do Web UI testing. Other common packages for needs like logging, assertions, and REST API calls also work well with BDD frameworks.

Finally, BDD test frameworks open the door to shifting left. They can be the starting point for QA-led BDD. Demonstrating the value in behavior-driven automation can open interest in Three Amigos collaboration, which can then lead to more process improvements and better software quality.


BDD test frameworks require extra development overhead at first. They aren’t as simple to use as unit-like test frameworks. It also takes a lot of practice to write good Gherkin. I’ve talked with engineers (typically developers) who see the feature file layer as unnecessary “plaster” over test cases. Without full team collaboration and cooperation, the justification for BDD diminishes.

Strict behavior independence may also make execution time less efficient. While steps may be reused, common setup operations must be run for each test. CRUD operations illustrate this point well. In a BDD framework, each operation (create, retrieve, update, delete) would be covered by a separate test scenario. However, the operations are interdependent: a test must create a thing before it can delete the thing. Thus, the delete scenario will borrow some logic from the create scenario. A procedure-driven test could more efficiently stack steps into one test case like this: create, retrieve, update, retrieve, delete, retrieve. Assertions would be interleaved with operations. This one test case would cover multiple behaviors, but it would save execution time by avoiding repeated creations for setup and deletions for cleanups. Many times, people have even asked me if there is a way to sequence Gherkin scenarios together to achieve the same effect! (This is not possible, and it would violate test independence.)

If BDD frameworks are used without a BDD process, then BDD could become pigeonholed as a “QA thing,” forever banished to the realm of the far right (the opposite of shift left, not the political spectrum). This could raise barriers to collaboration if not handled properly.

Furthermore, the lack of the full BDD means that many BDD benefits will go missing. Miscommunications could still easily happen because biz and dev would not be involved in defining behavior scenarios. Delivery deadlines could still be missed because testing and automation cannot readily shift left. Out of the 12 major benefits of BDD, the first 4 would be lost.


Overall, I think the advantages of BDD test automation frameworks outweigh the disadvantages for most above-unit functional testing needs, regardless of whether or not a team uses a full BDD process. Ideally, a team would embrace full-BDD, but that’s not always reality. A “‑‑BDD;” situation (that’s a prefix decrement, to note that collaboration was missing before automation) can still be seen as a glass half-full.

Who Should Lead BDD?

Behavior-driven development offers great benefits: better communication, easier test automation, and higher code quality. There are many ways for a team to start doing BDD, and naturally, someone needs to stand up and lead the effort. In my experience, adopting BDD is its own process. An evangelist converts team leaders, training sessions are given, and Gherkinized acceptance criteria start being automated. However, not everyone will embrace the changes, especially those across different role types. And big changes take time. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will be a mature, effective BDD process.

This post covers three possible ways to lead BDD adoption, each from one of the Three Amigos roles. Any role can lead the charge, but each will have its unique struggles. These possibilities are advisory but not necessarily prescriptive. If you want to move your team into BDD, use these three approaches as guidelines for crafting a plan that best meets your needs. And, of course, the advice in Winning Support for BDD pertains to all approaches. Furthermore, as you read these approaches, put yourselves in the shoes of roles other than your own, so you can better understand the struggles each role faces.

Note: The approaches below presume that the underlying software development process is Agile Scrum. Nevertheless, they may be tweaked and applied to other processes, like Waterfall or Kanban.

The Starting Point

The starting point for all three approaches below is a “traditional” Agile sprint – one that is not (yet) behavior-driven. Product owners write user stories, developers implement the solutions, and testers test the deliverables. The diagram below shows the the main flow of sprint work in this type of sprint, and it will serve as the basis for illustrating BDD adoption:

Traditional Sprint

The overall flow of a “traditional,” non-behavior-driven Agile sprint. Ceremonies like planning, review, and retrospective should still happen, but the are left out of this diagram to put emphasis on parts affected by BDD.



The most common approach I’ve seen is QA-led BDD adoption, because testers arguably have the most to gain. It is most applicable when the Three Amigos roles (biz, dev, and test) are well-defined and separate. The impetus for QA to lead BDD adoption could be that developers deliver code too late to adequately test and automate within a sprint, or it could be that the QA team is struggling to scale their test automation development. There may also be resistance to BDD from biz and dev roles.


The sensible path for QA is to start all the way to the right and progressively shift left. This means that the starting point would be test automation. Start by building a solid automation code base. Pick a well-supported BDD framework like Cucumber, SpecFlow, or behave, and start adding scenarios and step definitions. Select scenarios for core product features rather than the latest sprint stories, so that the code base will be populated with the most basic, useful steps. Once the automation code reaches a “critical mass” for step reusability, QA can then proactively classify new test scenarios as automated or manual. Automated tests become easier and easier to write, giving QA more time to be exploratory with manual testing. Ideally, all manual testing would become exploratory.

Then, it’s time to start shifting left. At this point, all Gherkin steps would be in the automation code only, so set up a tool like Pickles to expose the steps to all team members as living documentation. QA should then schedule Three Amigos meetings with biz and dev to proactively discuss user story expectations. In those meetings, QA should start demonstrating how to write acceptance criteria in Gherkin, which then expedites testing. A big win would be if a QA engineer could write a new scenario using only pre-existing, pre-automated steps and then run it successfully on the spot.

Once biz and dev folks are convinced of BDD’s benefits, encourage them to participate in writing Gherkin. When they get comfortable, encourage product owners to write acceptance criteria in Gherkin when they write user stories, and hold Three Amigos meetings before sprint planning as part of grooming. Convince them that for them to help write Gherkin scenarios is a process efficiency for the whole team.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Shifting left is never easy, especially when team members are hardened into their roles. That’s why QA must write both really good test automation and really good Gherkin scenarios. Success should speak for itself once QA delivers good automation fast. Furthermore, QA must be clear that BDD is not merely a test tool, it’s a process that requires a paradigm shift. Otherwise, BDD could be easily pigeonholed to be a “QA thing.”

Dev-Led BDD


There are a few reasons that could push developers to lead BDD. On some Agile teams, there’s no distinction between dev and QA roles: all team members are software engineers responsible for both developing and testing the software. Or, developers may not be satisfied with the testing effort. Maybe too many bugs are escaping the sprint, or maybe automation isn’t getting done in time. Or, perhaps the product owner is not happy with the deliverables and putting pressure on the team to do better. Whatever the circumstance, developers are more than capable of winning with BDD.


The best way for developers to start is to set up Three Amigos meetings, to stop the game of telephone between biz and test. In those meetings, start translating acceptance criteria into Gherkin. Then, start helping out with test automation – that may mean anything from offering advice to QA to building the framework from scratch. Then, start pushing left and right to get biz and test on board with BDD.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.


It may be difficult for developers to work on test automation because they may lack either the expertise or the time to devote to good test automation. Automation is a specialized discipline, and it takes time and diligence to build up expertise to do it right. I’ve seen very skilled developers haughtily build very shabby automation frameworks.

Developers must also be careful to not be too technical, or else biz and test roles may reject BDD for being too complicated or beyond their abilities. Furthermore, some teams may be resistant to developing test automation. For example, automation work may be “starved” for points because it is underestimated or similarly starved for time because it is deemed lower in priority to other work.

Biz-Led BDD


BDD is designed to bring technical and business roles together into healthier collaboration, and biz folks can certainly lead BDD adoption as successfully as more technical folks can. Major reasons for biz to take the lead could be if development is perpetually running behind schedule, if deliverables don’t meet the original requirements, or if software bugs are rampant.


For biz roles, “shift left” could be better called “pull left.” Start by writing solid user stories and Gherkin acceptance criteria. Focus on good Gherkin that is readable and reusable. Then, introduce BDD as a refinement to the Agile process, highlighting its benefits. Initiate Three Amigos meetings to make sure that you are communicating the right things to dev and test. Once collaboration is going well, suggest BDD automation as a way to expedite dev and test work. If acceptance criteria are all Gherkinized, then developing BDD automation would be a natural extension.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.


In my experience, biz roles (specifically product owners) tend to be the most hesitant about BDD. They often see writing Gherkin as a burdensome requirement rather than a way to help their team. Or, they may fear that BDD is “too technical” for them. It may also be difficult for them to pitch BDD automation to the team. To be successful, biz roles need to step outside their comfort zone to win supporters from dev and test.

Process paradigm shifts can be hard, especially on teams that are already overwhelmed with work. Some people just don’t like change. Process and automation change can also be a big challenge if QA is outsourced (which is common).

Side-By-Side Comparison

Here’s the TL;DR:

Role Circumstances Steps Struggles
  • Code is delivered too late to test and automate
  • Automation development is not scaling
  1. Build a solid BDD automation framework
  2. Demonstrate automation success
  3. Set up Three Amigos meetings during the sprint
  4. Start writing Gherkin scenarios with biz and dev as part of grooming
  • Showing that BDD is a whole development process, not just a QA thing
  • Getting the team to truly shift left
  • No separation of dev and QA roles
  • Too many bugs are escaping the sprint
  • Pressure from biz to do better
  1. Initiate better collaboration through Three Amigos and Gherkin
  2. Push right by helping QA with testing and automation
  3. Push left by helping biz write better acceptance criteria
  • Humbly learning good automation practices
  • Dedicating time for automation and more meetings
  • Missed deadlines
  • Deliverables not matching expectations
  • Too many bugs
  1. Write acceptance criteria in good Gherkin
  2. Set up Three Amigos meetings to review Gherkin
  3. Pitch BDD automation
  • Learning semi-technical things
  • Pushing all the way to automation


These are just three general approaches intended to show how BDD is for everyone. If you have other approaches, please describe them in the comment section below! Whatever the approach, make sure to demonstrate that BDD helps everyone, or else people may feel forced into corners and reject BDD for bad reasons. And remember, software quality is not just QA’s responsibility; it is everyone’s responsibility.

Winning Support for BDD

Adopting behavior-driven development practices can greatly improve software quality and productivity, but like any big change, it will have opponents along with supporters. I’ve met resistance from all roles: testers, developers, product owners, and managers. And some people can be stubborn. As with any proposal, the best way to win support is not just to tell the benefits but to demonstrate them. Below are five major ways to demonstrate the benefits of BDD.

Make it a Refinement, not an Overhaul

I remember talking with a scrum master one time about challenges his team faced with testing and automation. The user stories his team wrote were a mess: they may or may not have had acceptance criteria, and the product owner would often ask for features to be scrapped or redone after a sprint or two. The team basically gave up on automated testing due to feature flux. Naturally, I proposed BDD to him, suggesting that it could help drive better features through formalization. However, this scrum master balked at the idea: “My team is stretched so thin right now, there’s no way we can overhaul our process right now.”

Clearly, the team had a serious problem, but they weren’t willing to try any solution deemed too “big.” The scrum master’s perception was that BDD would be a disruptive change that would hurt them more than help them. In cases like this, it is best to present BDD as a refinement of Agile, and not an overhaul of it. Agile says user stories should have acceptance criteria; BDD says acceptance criteria should be formalized. Agile says that the definition of done should include test automation; BDD says automation is a natural extension of the acceptance criteria. There’s nothing in Agile that BDD undoes, and there are shortcomings in Agile that BDD solves.

Write Good Gherkin

There is a big difference between Gherkin and good Gherkin. Anyone can add BDD buzzwords to existing test procedures, but effective BDD needs a paradigm shift. Unfortunately, bad Gherkin can ruin many of the benefits BDD can bring. For example, imperative steps will frustrate product owners, and mixed point-of-view will confuse testers. Nothing will ever be truly perfect, but it is important to strive for good Gherkin from the start, especially when the first behavior scenarios will often be used as examples for future scenarios.

Start the Automation Snowball

BDD and automation go together like peas and carrots. Not only can test automation shift left (since Gherkin scenarios are both acceptance criteria and tests), but steps can be implemented once and reused by any scenarios. When the first BDD scenarios are written, obviously all steps are new steps. As sprints pass, though, many common steps will likely be reused. I’ve even written new scenarios without adding any new steps!

Test automation is often the last thing to be done for a story, if it’s even reached at all. The inherent step reusability helps BDD automation get done sooner. It may take a while to build up useful, reusable steps in the code base, but they will cause an “automation snowball” once they are there. Imagine telling your team that the test automation is already done once a scenario is written in Gherkin!

Take Baby Steps

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will a mature BDD process be. People take time to adjust to new paradigms. Start out slow, and do it right. Train the team how to write good Gherkin. Try a few stories one sprint, rather than taking on the whole backlog. For a product-owner-led approach, start with Gherkinizing acceptance criteria for a sprint or two before attempting any automation. Alternatively, for a test-led approach, work on the automation framework first, and then start to shift the scenario writing left to the developers and then to the product owners once the snowball gets bigger.

It’s okay if things aren’t perfect at first. Learn the lessons and iterate for improvement. Take baby steps!

Highlight how Everyone Wins

BDD is truly a win/win for everyone. It’s not a way to shuffle responsibilities or push around busywork, it’s a way to make a team more interdependent upon each other. Each role in the Three Amigos is empowered to do the right things, with support from each other in lock-step. Consider how BDD process changes help each role work together better:

Role New Responsibility Interdependent Benefit
Product Owner Learn to express requirements in a more formalized, slightly techy way Better assurance that features will be what they actually want, be working correctly, and be protected against future regressions
Developer Contribute more to grooming and test planning Less likely to develop the wrong thing or to be “held up” by testing
Tester Build and learn a new automation framework Automation will snowball, allowing them to meet sprint commitments and focus extra time on exploratory testing
Everyone Another meeting or two Better communication and fewer problems


Nobody on an Agile team can rightly say, “BDD isn’t useful to me.” Software quality is everyone’s responsibility, and BDD is a great way to improve it.

The Dot-Dot-Dot

Warning: This post has nothing to do specifically with software. It is rather a personal musing over communication styles.

Throughout my years in the professional work environment, I’ve noticed a trend that bothers me: the inappropriate use of the ellipsis in textual communication. For example:

Hi Andy… Automated tests from the ABC build job are failing this morning… I don’t know why… Please do the needful… Thanks…

Dot-dot-dot… What meaning did the author intend to convey?

  • Did their finger get stuck on the keyboard?
  • Did they intend to use a period or a comma?
  • Do they want to textually capture pauses between their phrases?
  • Am I supposed to assume something that they haven’t said?
  • Are they giving me a specific task to do or simply speculating?
  • Did they lose their train of thought?
  • Do they doubt their words?
  • Are they half asleep?
  • Are they wishy-washy?
  • Are they being passive-aggressive?
  • Are they complaining to themselves?
  • Are they upset?
  • Are they in a bad mood?
  • Are they mad at me?
  • Am I in trouble?

I know I’m not the only one standing on this soap box – a friend recently triggered me by tweeting about the same problem. Blame my minor in creative writing.


This is not merely a minor nuance. Ellipsis abuse causes ambiguity, doubt, and stress. It can cause uncertainty in office relationships. Terse textual communication is already crude, and every jot and tittle implies meaning, whether intended or accidental.

In professional environments, always strive for clear, concise, and direct communication. Good communication skills are more than just a resume tagline. We should all pay close attention to how we write. Be on point, not on three points.