2

I have not see these links explicitly stated in the Agile literature I have read. So, I was wondering if this approach was correct: Let a story be defined as "In order to [RESULT], [ROLE] needs to [ACTION]" then

  1. RESULT generates system tests.
  2. ROLE generates acceptance tests.
  3. ACTION generates component and unit tests.

Where the definitions are the ones used in xUnit Patterns which to be fair are fairly standard.

Is this a correct interpretation or did I misunderstand something?

Improve this question
1
  • Actually that makes good sense to me. We do something a little different, but what you have is actually pretty clear and easily translatable into the right areas of responsibility.
    – Akira71
    Commented Dec 12, 2012 at 13:50

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Yes, that's a pretty solid approach.

Role generating the acceptance tests may be a bit of a stretch, but at least it links the validation requirements to the presumed user of the feature (story).

Result and Action capture differing layers of verification, focusing on integration and unit testing. There can be a degree of overlap between those two aspects, but I think your approach works well enough.

Regarding xUnit Patterns book - if they are offering up templates, then they may well be within a hidden or secured site referenced within the book itself.

Improve this answer
2
  • XUnit pattern was only the definition of the tests terminology rather than templates. Does that makes sense?
    – Sardathrion - against SE abuse
    Commented Dec 12, 2012 at 16:20
  • @Sardathrion - yes, that makes sense. Sounds like the templates don't exist yet.
    – user53019
    Commented Dec 12, 2012 at 16:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.