Clarify BDD concepts and Selenium integration in testing types docs

[LetyPG]

User description

This change corrects conceptual inaccuracies in the Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) section of the testing types documentation.

The previous description conflated BDD with TDD-style unit test cycles and implied that Selenium directly transforms BDD specifications into executable tests. The updated content clarifies BDD’s focus on shared behavioral examples, acceptance criteria, and collaboration between stakeholders.

It also explicitly distinguishes the roles of BDD frameworks, step definitions, and Selenium as an optional UI automation engine, aligning the documentation with common industry practice.

Fixes #2564

Description

Types of changes

• Change to the site (I have double-checked the Netlify deployment, and my changes look good)
• Code example added (and I also added the example to all translated languages)
• Improved translation
• Added new translation (and I also added a notice to each document missing translation)

Checklist

• I have read the contributing document.
• I have used hugo to render the site/docs locally and I am sure it works.

---

PR Type

Documentation

---

Description

• Clarifies BDD methodology focus on shared behavioral examples

• Corrects misconception that Selenium directly transforms BDD specs

• Distinguishes roles of BDD frameworks, step definitions, and Selenium

• Emphasizes collaboration between stakeholders in BDD approach

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["BDD Methodology"] --> B["Gherkin Specifications"]
  B --> C["Step Definitions"]
  C --> D["Executable Code"]
  D --> E["Selenium UI Automation"]
  F["BDD Frameworks<br/>JBehave, Capybara,<br/>Robot Framework"] -.-> C
  G["Stakeholder<br/>Collaboration"] -.-> B

Loading

File Walkthrough

Relevant files

Documentation

testing_types.en.md Clarify BDD concepts and Selenium integration roles            website_and_docs/content/documentation/test_practices/testing_types.en.md Rewrote BDD section to clarify it as methodology focused on shared behavioral examples and stakeholder collaboration Explained Gherkin specifications as acceptance criteria and ubiquitous language Clarified that BDD frameworks, step definitions, and Selenium serve distinct roles Removed incorrect implication that Selenium directly transforms BDD specs into executable tests Added explicit explanation of how Selenium integrates as optional UI automation engine with BDD frameworks +29/-22

---

[netlify]

👷 Deploy request for selenium-dev pending review.

Visit the deploys page to approve it

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	13d473a

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[qodo-code-review]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
🟡	🎫 #2564 🟢 Clarify the distinction between BDD and TDD mechanics (avoid presenting BDD as a strict TDD-style “failing unit test -> implement” cycle). Avoid describing BDD specifications as “failing by design”; frame them as behavior/acceptance criteria, with automation being secondary (scenarios may fail when first automated, but failure is not the purpose). Correctly frame BDD’s primary goal as preventing misunderstandings/acceptance-level defects (not “detecting more errors than TDD”). Avoid overgeneralizing that BDD cycles continue until “all types of tests are passing”; keep scope on behavior validation with other test types being complementary. 🔴 Correct inaccurate tooling relationships: BDD frameworks are not “built on top of Selenium”; Selenium is an optional UI automation engine that can be integrated; also avoid mislabeling tools (e.g., Capybara not BDD per se; Robot Framework is keyword-driven; JBehave is a BDD framework).
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
Update

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
General	✅ Provide more accurate BDD framework examples Suggestion Impact: The commit updated the BDD frameworks list by adding "Cucumber" to the examples. However, it did not fully follow the suggestion because it kept "Capybara" and "Robot Framework" and did not add "SpecFlow" to that specific list. code diff: -BDD frameworks such as: **_JBehave, Capybara and Robot Framework_** +BDD frameworks such as: **_Cucumber, JBehave, Capybara and Robot Framework_** are responsible for parsing and managing specifications Replace the list of BDD frameworks with more accurate examples, such as Cucumber, SpecFlow, and JBehave. website_and_docs/content/documentation/test_practices/testing_types.en.md [139-140] -BDD frameworks such as: **_JBehave, Capybara and Robot Framework_** +BDD frameworks such as **_Cucumber, SpecFlow, and JBehave_** are responsible for parsing and managing specifications [Suggestion processed] Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 __ Why: The suggestion improves the technical accuracy of the documentation by replacing less precise examples of BDD frameworks (Capybara, Robot Framework) with more appropriate ones.	Low
Possible issue	✅ Correct a typo in the text Suggestion Impact: The commit corrected the typo by changing "mentionated" to "mentioned" in the referenced sentence (along with additional unrelated formatting/content edits nearby). code diff: -Selenium as the automation engine to perform browser interactions -can be used in combination with the frameworks mentionated above as +Selenium as the automation engine to perform browser interactions +can be used in combination with the frameworks mentioned above as an optional dependency that enables UI automation when browser-level validation is required. Correct the typo "mentionated" to "mentioned". website_and_docs/content/documentation/test_practices/testing_types.en.md [144-146] Selenium as the automation engine to perform browser interactions -can be used in combination with the frameworks mentionated above as +can be used in combination with the frameworks mentioned above as an optional dependency that enables UI automation when browser-level validation is required. [Suggestion processed] Suggestion importance[1-10]: 3 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies and fixes a typo ('mentionated' to 'mentioned'), which improves the document's professionalism and readability.	Low
Update