Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

108644Re: [XP] Running Tested Features

Expand Messages
  • yahoogroups@jhrothjr.com
    Jul 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      From: "Phlip" <phlip2005.at.gmail.com@...>
      To: "extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com"
      <extremeprogramming.at.yahoogroups.com@...>
      Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [XP] Running Tested Features


      > John Roth wrote:
      >
      >> At some point I'd cut that short by pointing out that there is a
      >> standard way of doing it on Windows, and asking if that's
      >> acceptable, or if the customer wants anything different. I'd probably
      >> motivate that by waving the "the standard way is cheap, doing
      >> something different is going to be expensive" flag.
      >
      > A project should start by declaring certain MotherhoodStories. Things
      > like the performance target, the target platforms, and the
      > look-and-feel. So if we start a project saying "Like MS Word", then
      > the usability decision how to implement Save As is already made for
      > us.
      >
      > Better, if we use MFC, we can just tell the Class Wizard to activate
      > Save As, and it will do the rest.
      >
      > Test-first sucks. Just type the friggin feature in; it's only 4 lines
      > of code now.
      >
      > Right?
      >
      >> Since I've gotten agreement to do the standard thing (same as every
      >> other application the customer uses on Windows), I'll just test to see
      >> if the application creates the right file with the right name in the
      >> right
      >> place. FitLibrary has a reasonable fixture for that. I might use it, or I
      >> might take the basic idea and run with it.
      >
      > That does not test the user would have seen the Save As dialog.
      >
      > And that dialog is standard, so intercepting its event queue, to test
      > and dismiss it, is hard.
      >
      > And putting this test into a grid in Fitnesse is an empty victory.
      >
      > Riiiight??

      Half right. I've always taken the approach that Fit/Fitnesse
      needs to be supplemented by some kind of pixels on screen
      test. Since usability testing is necessarilly manual, it's a good
      place to wrap this level of testing.

      However... The approach I'm taking is that the abstract UI/
      concrete application layer determines which concrete UI/GUI
      classes get shown, and that these decisions _must_ be visible
      to the FIT fixture.

      So I can tell that the layer I'm actually testing is invoking the
      concrete GUI class that encapsulates the Save As dialog. If
      I was writing the test as a customer, I probably wouldn't put
      that detail in there; it simply wouldn't occur to me. If I had
      my professional tester sitting next to me while writing it, that
      detail would get inserted. That's her job.

      John Roth
      >
      > --
      > Phlip
      > http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic