On Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 10:11:07 PM, Gary Feldman wrote:
> Here's a question that's been bothering me: How do you know that
> the information captured in the Executable Acceptance Test is a
> reliable and complete representation of the story?
Good question, but here's an equally serious one: how, using any
method, do you /ever/ know that?
It's a fundamental part of the team's job to be sure that the tests
are sufficient to give the desired level of confidence that the
system does what is expected. They use all their skills to
accomplish that.
What more might one want?
> Your comment gives a different perspective: If you're saying that
> you can put anything you want into the EAT document, that implies
> you can put the original stories, use cases, scenarios, or
> whatever there. If you do this, then of course the issues about
> throwing away the originals become moot. Furthermore, this
> documentation isn't executable. So while the idea of using the
> acceptance tests as the container for the important parts of the
> early artifacts seems quite reasonable to me, it also sidesteps
> the questions that are being raised.
I wouldn't say that it sidesteps, I would say that it points out
that if you want to retain documents, or create additional ones,
there's a place to put them. In my opinion, it would be like taping
drawings of the design of your car to your car: it wouldn't add much
to the reality.
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Replacing an on-site customer with some use cases is about as effective
as replacing a hug from your Mom with a friendly note.
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
