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
    CommentedDec 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
    CommentedDec 12, 2012 at 16:20
  • @Sardathrion - yes, that makes sense. Sounds like the templates don't exist yet.
    – user53019
    CommentedDec 12, 2012 at 16:39

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.