As my ubiquitous language I have some phrases like :
Feature : Display A Post
In order to be able to check mistakes in a post
As an admin or customer
I want to be able to view the post
Scenario : Display Post
When : I select a post
Then : the post should be viewed
Is that a right user story? Such scenarios may have some minimal differences at UI level. Should I violate the DRY principle and repeat the feature for another role?
Different users may need different requirements over time, and I think this is the reason we usually write user stories per the user role.So should I be worry about how the requirements may change over time for different roles or I can leave a single user story (and the same test code,production code, databse ...) with multiple roles and refactor when their requirements forced me to separate them ?
I am not sure what your problem here and will try to guess. So first, your first three lines is just a description and not real steps. This enables adding custom text that will not run.
As to your other 2 steps, it is very hard to say whether they are good or not. As you might have already noticed, you are not bound by Cucumber to have a specific scenario flow. Cucumber gives you the freedom to design and write your code the way it makes more sense to YOU and YOUR business logic.
Saying that, I see no issue in repeating similar steps to test another role. In order to make the feature file a bit more DRY you can use the Scenario Outline option. It might look something like this:
Scenario Outline: Display Post as <role>
When I select a post as <role>
Then the post should be viewed
Examples:
|role |
|role1|
|role2|
In this case, two scenarios run one after another while rolevalue changes according to the Examples list.
Now, in regards to your possible changes in future. You can't always predict what will happen in future and unless continuously changing current requirements is a normal practice for you or your team, I wouldn't worry too much about this. If sometime in future current scenarios will become obsolete, you will review them and rewrite them or add new ones accordingly.
If multiple roles are required in a feature, then that means it is an epic, not a feature. It is a must to break down each feature so it only has one role, and it can deliver a single value to a single group of users.
I think the problem here is your language which needs refinement to clarify what you want to do here and why its important.
It seems to me that as an admin looking to fix mistakes in a post that what I need to is to be able to change a post.
A similar thing applies for the customer (should that be author?). If you explore what they will do when a post has been authored with a mistake then you will probably find that different roles interact in different ways. You'll start to ask questions about what happens if the customer and the admin make fixes, and how the customer responds when the admin makes a fix that the customer doesn't like and all sorts of other scenarios.
If you do this you'll probably find that most of your duplication goes away, and you'll learn lots about the differences between customer and admin behaviour in this particular context.
Related
I would like to implement CQRS and ES using Axon framework
I've got a pretty complex HTML form which represents recruitment process with six steps.
ES would be helpful to generate historical statistics for selected dates and track changes in form.
Admin can always perform several operations:
assign person responsible for each step
provide notes for each step
accept or reject candidate on every step
turn on/off SMS or email notifications
assign tags
Form update (difference only) is sent from UI application to backend.
Assuming I want to make changes only for servers side application, question is what should be a Command and what should be an Event, I consider three options:
Form patch is a Command which generates Form Update Event
Drawback of this solution is that each event handler needs to check if changes in form refers to this handler ex. if email about rejection should be sent
Form patch is a Command which generates several Events ex:. Interviewer Assigned, Notifications Turned Off, Rejected on technical interview
Drawback of this solution is that some events could be generated and other will not because of breaking constraints ex: Notifications Turned Off will succeed but Interviewer Assigned will fail due to assigning unauthorized user. Maybe I should check all constraints before commands generation ?
Form patch is converted to several Commands ex: Assign Interviewer, Turn Off Notifications and each command generates event ex: Interviewer Assigned, Notifications Turned Off
Drawback of this solution is that some commands can fail ex: Assign Interviewer can fail due to assigning unauthorized user. This will end up with inconsistent state because some events would be stored in repository, some will not. Maybe I should check all constraints before commands generation ?
The question I would call your attention to: are you creating an authority for the information you store, or are you just tracking information from the outside world?
Udi Dahan wrote Race Conditions Don't Exist; raising this interesting point
A microsecond difference in timing shouldn’t make a difference to core business behaviors.
If you have an unauthorized user in your system, is it really critical to the business that they be authorized before they are assigned responsibility for a particular step? Can the system really tell that the "fault" is that the responsibility was assigned to the wrong user, rather than that the user is wrongly not authorized?
Greg Young talks about exception reports in warehouse systems, noting that the responsibility of the model in that case is not to prevent data changes, but to report when a data change has produced an inconsistent state.
What's the cost to the business if you update the data anyway?
If the semantics of the message is that a Decision Has Been Made, or that Something In The Real World Has Changed, then your model shouldn't be trying to block that information from being recorded.
FormUpdated isn't a particularly satisfactory event, for the reason you mention; you have to do a bunch of extra work to cast it in domain specific terms. Given a choice, you'd prefer to do that once. It's reasonable to think in terms of translating events from domain agnostic forms to domain specific forms as you go along.
HttpRequestReceived ->
FormSubmitted ->
InterviewerAssigned
where the intermediate representations are short lived.
I can see one big drawback of the first option. One of the biggest advantage of CQRS/ES with Axon is scalability. We can add new features without worring about regression bugs. Adding new feature is the result of defining new commands, event and handlers for both of them. None of them should not iterfere with ones existing in our system.
FormUpdate as a command require adding extra logic in one of the handler. Adding new attribute to patch and in consequence to command will cause changes in current logic. Scalability is no longer advantage in that case.
VoiceOfUnreason is giving a very good explanation what you should think about when starting with such a system, so definitely take a look at his answer.
The only thing I'd like to add, is that I'd suggest you take the third option.
With the examples you gave, the more generic commands/events don't tell that much about what's happening in your domain. The more granular events far better explain what exactly has happened, as the event message its name already points it out.
Pulling Axon Framework in to the loop, I can also add a couple of pointers.
From a command message perspective, it's safe to just take a route and not over think it to much. The framework quite easily allows you to adjust the command structure later on. In Axon Framework trainings it is typically suggested to let a command message take the form of a specific action you're performing. So 'assigning a person to a step would typically be a AssignPersonToStepCommand, as that is the exact action you'd like the system to perform.
From events it's typically a bit nastier to decide later on that you want fine grained or generic events. This follows from doing Event Sourcing. Since the events are your source of truth, you'll thus be required to deal with all forms of events you've got in your system.
Due to this I'd argue that the weight of your decision should lie with how fine grained your events become. To loop back to your question: in the example you give, I'd say option 3 would fit best.
I'm trying to write a scenario :
As a user
......
Scenario: Breaking a rule
Given:I'm an active user
When: I break the rule 'X'
Then: I should be added to rule breakers' list
Butrule breakers' list is defined in another story.
So this story is no more independent.
We can change the Then phrase to this:
Then: The rule 'X' should be breaked by me
But the behavior of my scenario doesn't seem clear enough.
More examples:
Scenario: Registration
.....
Then: I should be loged in
(While login belongs to another scenario)vs
Then: I should be registered
And the real problem comes to the action when navigation is something your stakeholders care about.
My question:
How can I have an independent scenarios which are clearer in situations like that?
If the rule breaker's list is defined elsewhere, it's part of the state in which the scenario starts, so it's a "given".
Your scenario should resemble something like:
As a user
......
Scenario: Breaking a rule
Given:I'm an active user
And: I'm not in the rule breakers' list <- Add another given
When: I break the rule 'X'
Then: I should be added to rule breakers' list
The extra "given" can reuse the same code as the other scenario, if that's useful. Alternatively, you can use a shortcut, like putting data directly into the database rather than going through the UI. It's fine for this scenario to have no knowledge of how that list comes into being, as long as there's an example of that somewhere else.
What is a "user story scenario"? User stories come and go they are not much more than a piece of paper and some discussion. After the user story is finished, it has unsignificant relevance. However, your gherkins are there to stay as automated tests and living documentation. After the user story is finished, you can deliver a new function. What is that function? Your gherkin should describe exactly that and nothing more.
In your example: ok, there might be some plans that we are also going to keep a list of rule-breakers, but let's concentrate first on the immediate user story and forget about such a list. That list might be a separate user story later on or it may never even happen. So the question is: what immediate value has my current user story, what is the functionality that the users will see. If it's just some feedback to the user along some rules, than that is what my gherkins should reflect: Given some preconditions When I'm breaking rule 'X' Than I should receive feedback this or that way.
If it is difficult to come up with sensible gherkin scenarios, chances are high that you have split up your user stories inappropriately (which BTW is not a problem, but something best found out as early as possible - which is the very reason you are using bdd.)
I have a couple of questions regarding if the following process can be considered use-cases.
Website where establishments can post events.
User can "follow" establishment, "attend" event.
etc...
On my index page, i have the following sections:
Recommended Events, Events recently created, Events from establishments that the user "follows", Top 10 establishments, Recent comments, Popular events and so on.. (all which i am pulling from a database)
Would the index page be considered a use case? And would all the sections i named be individual use-cases? Considering i already have a Consult establishment, and consult event use-case, would all the section fall into this category?
I have on the establishment page a button where the user can click and the user will follow the establishment and receive notifications. All the button does once clicked, is adds the user to a table (User_Preferences), pretty much like a "like" button or a follow button.
Would this be considered a use-case(Add to Preferences use case)?
When i visit an establishment page, i am pulling data from many tables, such as: beverages, music, artists_attended, food, etc.
On the use-case Consult establishment, would i need to include every individual information? consult_beverage, consults_music,consult_artist, consult food all included to consult establishment? or are they considered already in consult establishment?
Finally, would every page i create, Index,Establishment,Events,UserProfile, etc... would they all be considered a use-case? Consult Establishment, Consult Events, Manage Profile
thank you, any tips or help would be appreciated, i understand the concept of use cases, but i sometimes tend to overthink some uses cases. thanks for the help.
The index page itself is not a use case. A use case represents some interaction between an actor and the system, but the page and its sections are part of the system design. If you were to replace the web browser with a custom-written GUI application, the use cases should be essentially the same.
In this case, you seem to be creating the use cases after you've designed the system, which is probably what's tripping you up -- use cases are usually determined before the system is designed.
"Add to Preferences" seems like a good use case. How much work goes into realizing the use case is normally of little importance; what matters is whether the interaction provides some value to the actor. The complete set of use cases describes what the user can do with the system, not how many engineering hours were spent constructing it.
You should not incorporate details on the stored data in your use cases. If you find yourself doing that you need to take a step back and try to think a little more abstractly. What does the use case do for the actor, what does the actor want? To get information about an establishment? Then that's enough, you don't need to specify the exact information stored in the system. The important thing is that the actor wants the information and that the system provides it.
Use cases are part of system analysis, not system design. As such, there is no problem with having the same design component (page) realize several use cases. So you could for instance have use cases for "see recommended events", "see coming events for 'followed' establishments", "see coming 'attended' events", all being realized in different sections on the same page.
A page is never any use case. A use case is what brings value to an actor. Simple as that. If you can name the value then you got the name of the use case. If you can't name the value then you don't have a use case.
E.g. your 1st events page: I would assume that the use case behind it will be Find Event. Similarly you have to think of the other cases. On the opposite Login to Site is not a use case because it does not bring any value to the actor.
When defining scenarios in Gherkin sometimes there is no clear distinction between Given and When steps, i.e. there is no active interaction with the system from the user and the purpose of the validation is to verify how the system should look under certain circumstances.
Consider the following:
Scenario: Show current balance
Given user is on account page
Then user should see his balance
vs
Scenario: Show current balance
When user goes to account page
Then user should see his balance
I am not sure I would always use the second variant. If I have multiple scenarios sharing the context "user is on account page" and some of them have additional user actions while others don't, then it seems to me it should be valid to keep "user in account page" as a Given step even though it may lack "When" for some scenarios. Is this a valid approach?
Formally and technically Cucumber/SpecFlow doesn't require you to write a When-step or rather Given/When/Then's are just executed in the order they are written in the scenario. In that regard you don't need a When-step.
But, as Andy Waite wrote about, the When-step shows on the action or event that your system takes from the "Setup" to get to the new state that you verifies in the Then-step. In that regard a When-step should be present in every test (as you wrote: what are we testing otherwise).
That leaves your final comment; what about verifying just the setup (Given the system is started, Then the database is clean as a naïve example). In such scenarios the When-step could be skipped.
So, as always, it comes down to readability and understanding. Scenarios are written to make our thoughts about the systems behavior concrete and clear. Use the form that optimize for understanding and learning about the behavior in question.
Without thinking too hard on this I would probably guess that the general advice is to always use a When-step that makes the event or behavior very apparent and clear. I would shy away from implicit and hidden behavior when possible.
I hope this helps.
Generally a scenario consists of 3 parts:
Setup (the Given)
Action (the When)
Verification (the Then)
Sometimes the setup isn't required (or it's implicit). But I can't think of any situations in which you wouldn't need an action and verification.
Agree with Andy + Marcus here but I've a few comments that may be of use.
Gherkin feature files should act as living documentation for the behaviour of your system.
For this reason scenarios should provide enough detail to convey to a developer and other project stakeholders (product owner, testers etc) the business rules that embody that feature.
I think your question may have arisen from not considering this business rule end to end when articulating the scenario. I'd have to ask someone the question , what is a balance? Therefore I feel you may need a step to at least convey the concept - that before a user can look at their balance, they have to have one.
Scenario: Show current balance
Given I have a balance
When I go to my account page
Then I should see my balance
It's important to set system state (i.e. any 'Given' step) to allow you to clearly test that the system is working correctly - otherwise how are you going to determine that the balance is actually correct? You may wish to make this more explicit by specifying some arguments:
Scenario: Show current balance
Given my balance is £10
When I go to my account page
Then I should see my balance as £10
I'm not sure which BDD framework you are using but I use Behat which allows you to map more than one Gherkin step to a step definition. I.e
user is on account page
user goes to account page
can both map to a step definition which navigates a user to a page. The system behaviour is the same, the only reason to distinguish between the two, as you have, would be to make your scenarios more readable.
To my understanding when you write a scenario the are 3 steps that are needed.
A state that your application should be in at the begining.
What the user has to do to reach a certain state.
The outcome/input of the user's action i.e the end point of your scenario.
So the scenario will be something like :
Given the user is on the profile page
When the user goes to the balance page
Then the user should see their balance
The profile page will be where the user can click a button or link to acess their balance.
Then have a background :
Given the user is logged in
And the user has a balance
What I can think of is pre-populating certain form input elements based on the user's geographical information.
What are other ways can you think of to speed up user input on long application forms?
Or at least keep them focus on completing the application form?
If you have a long form, try to prune it down. Don't ask them to fill in fields that you don't really need.
If the form spans several pages, give the user some feedback as to how many more pages there are. We users hate clicking on the continue button wondering if this will be the last page.
Never lose a field that they filled in, no matter what they do. This could have security implications if passwords are involved.
Use dropdowns to provide the user with options unless there are a lot of options that the user would have to scroll through or if the terms in the dropdown aren't widely accepted (e.g. dropdown filled with Systems Engineer, Solution Developer, IT Application... I just want Programmer.).
Provide help for fields that might be hard to fill in (or provide examples).
If it is possible in your case, just collect the bare minimum up front and then allow the user to use the basic features of your service.
For the user to upgrade to a better level of service, they will need to fill in the 2nd form with more detail.
How important it is to you to collect ALL that information up front ? It is worth losing customers by demanding too much from them ? Why not demand it later at a time more convenient to the user.
Creating a multi-step wizard offering only a small number of input fields per step. Ensure that they are aware of how far they have progressed in the sequence.
The psychology is that once a user is 'invested' in a task, they are more likely to continue. If you present the whole list of input fields at once, you scare them off.
Offering musings at each step (cartoon, humor, sayings etc) makes them move to the next step out of curiosity.
Users won't mind filling in long forms if and only if they feel that the questions that you ask are important: otherwise they will be discouraged, and become impatient with it.
Remember, in a web application people have very, very short attention spans. When the user starts feeling that you are asking too much, they're usually right.
Keep required information as few as possible: other info should only be optional, and you have to give something in return to the user to compel them to complete that information.
However you implement it, please please please use some kind of Ajax hearbeat to store their progress server side and repopulate it if it's lost. There is nothing more infuriating to a user that working through a long form and having a browser or network hiccup lose their entire submission.
Whenever it happens to me I generally never give it a second shot, because at that point recreating my submission isn't worth whatever I was signing up for.
Checklist:
Explain clearly the purpose of the form. (What's in it for them?)
Prune, prune, prune, and keep questions clearly relevant!
Give the user feedback on his/her progress (if the form is split over multiple pages)
Ask for as little as you can up-front and leave the rest for later.
Clearly mark required fields
Group fields logically.
Keep labels/headings brief and easy to understand.
Prefill as much as possible - but not too much.
Spread super long forms over multiple pages and allow backtracking.
Cleverly placed "Back", "Save" and "Cancel" buttons put people's minds at ease - even when redundant.
Provide friendly (but clear!) validation error messages, in a timely manner.
Allow the user to reclaim half-filled in forms - don't lose their data!
No matter what you do, do not include a reset button. :-)
Finally:
Explicitly tell the user when the process is finished. ("Thank you! Your application has been sent.")
Tell the user what will happen next. ("A confirmation e-mail has been sent to your e-mail address, and we'll process your application within two working days.")
use Ajax to populate and update the controls asynchronously.It will speedup the filling of long application forms.
Split it up into multiple pages - there's nothing quite so discouraging as seeing that you have another 100 questions to go.
Put validation on each input and check it onblur(). If they get to the end of the page and then it says "question #2 was incorrect", chances are they've forgotten what that one was anyway and it'll be more difficult to return to it. Plus, if they answer a series of similar inputs in a particular, incorrect way, you should let them know straight away (eg: entering dates as mm/dd/yyyy when you want dd/mm/yyy)
Split the form into several steps. It's like how someone is much more likely to read five 3-sentence paragraphs than one big 15-sentence paragraph of the same length.
I agree with tim; just let them fill in the bare minimum information and then leave the rest to profile updates. If any data is necessary for the service offered on your site, ask for it when they try to avail of the service (and no earlier).
That said, I wouldn't advocate the kind of forcing function that adam suggests. It pays to give your users the warm, fuzzy feeling that they are privileged and can use ALL of the services on your site. Although, if you look at it hard enough, adam's and my suggestions are pretty much the same.
If the application needs to include a lot of information, then make sure the user can save at any point, and log off, and log in later to complete the form. This would make more sense if some of the information is not necessarily easily available. Tax returns are an obvious example, where some of the data may need to be calculated, or the user must find the relevant documentation.
In some cases the user might use the same information in multiple applications. In that case it might make sense for the user to register their details (Name, Address, Telephone numbers, etc), which are automatically filled in on each application. For example, if you had a website for a recruitment agency, they may allow users to register their details, and then to apply for a particular job, they can just include a personal statement that applies to that job in particular.
As another consideration, if some information may be incorrect (particular if this is not always clear, such as a CAPTCHA, or a user name that must be unique), either separate it from the rest of the data, or otherwise make it so a mistake doesn't mean the rest of the information must be reentered.
These are basically ways of avoiding the user having to enter the same information twice.