Ron Jeffries wrote:
> 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?
The traditional answer to that is with system testing, which, at least for
stories involving human interaction, has testers actually performing their side
of the story (or, if the project is lucky, writing scripts that do so).
The distinctions that come to mind quickly are a) the more the abstraction or
transformation between the story and the test, the more difficult it is to
confirm they match; and b) system testers whose job descriptions include
spending a substantial chunk of time understanding the customer perspective.
Modern methodologies certainly help with the second point by demanding more
direct contact between the development team and the customers.
It's the first that concerns me, particularly with FIT and FitNesse. The
table-driven testing language seems to give higher weight to easily writing
test cases and easily implementing automation, and lower weight to making it
easy to see the relationships between the test cases and the stories (or other
antecedents).
Gary
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/
