Skip to main content

Beyond TDD: Documentation Driven Development

There are quite a few articles extolling the virtues of test-driven development these days (here's one). And for good reason, too. Having done TDD for quite a while, I recently started combining it with documentation-driven design. This is what my open-source tool, JCite, is all about.

With this approach, I
  • sketch out the most important use cases,
  • combine them into the index of a tutorial (links plus teasers summarizing the use-case),
  • flesh out the tutorial topics (and thus use-cases) one by one,
  • develop the use-case tests in parallel to each topic,
  • cite the important parts of the tests as actual code samples into the topic, and
  • only then start doing the implementation (this last step is accompanied by more tests, which are now more like unit-tests).
In all, this is like literate programming, but of the use-case tests rather than the implementation code.

TDD already helps to make you focus on the user during API design. DDD takes the effect further by making you tell consistent and convincing stories for each important use-case to your users. This uncovers things like
  • inconsistent or poor naming: its easy to live with a poor name in a test - but hard to explain it,
  • overly complex design: you, the designer, have the design fully present in your mind, it often does not really seem complex when you write the tests - but try writing down all the details of why it is how it is: it will quickly make you wish it was simpler - and remember: your story should be convincing,
  • the need for simplified APIs atop more complex and powerful lower-level APIs: if you have to explain the same setup code over and over again, you'll see the need for a simplified API for typical setups, and
  • feature creep: features and options you don't really need, but thought you might just add quickly, become more expensive because every feature now incurs the full cost of documentation, test, design and implementation.
And it ensures that when you release, you always release a fully documented product. What good is a feature no one knows about?

(See RSpec and BDD - something crucial missing? for more of my thoughts on this.)


Popular posts from this blog

Threaded chat article and demo

While nothing major, managing threaded conversations in chat has bothered me for quite a while. Yesterday I had an idea on how to improve matters: Works using existing chat infrastructure. Needs only augmented clients. Plays well even if other party uses a non-thread aware chat tool. Separates threads automatically based on interaction patterns. I've written an article and have created an online demo about it. Discussion welcome.

Documentation Driven Development - Other Takes On The Theme

I googled for "Documentation Driven Development" and came up with a number of links (why the heck did I not do this sooner?). SpliceIt seem to be doing it, but don't cite tests. There is no mention of integration with use-case-level tests. Vincent Massol had the experience when writing books about frameworks - always improved the underlying code. The message is: you have to be serious about writing good docs. Otherwise the effect is lost. Korby Parnell just thinks about it, but some comments point to people with experience doing it. IEEE has an article about DDD for real time systems. Also seems to take it as far as code-generation. I haven't read it. Miguel dos Santos has little to add, but there is a nice comment by someone called "Tania" about applying the idea of documenting the "why" more generally. In the groups , I got: Ilja Preuss 's take is a bit too limited for me. In my experience, good DDD docs focus on tasks, not classes and