Search Results

Search found 97532 results on 3902 pages for 'user acceptance testing'.

Page 1/3902 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Automated unit testing, integration testing or acceptance testing

    - by bjarkef
    TDD and unit testing seems to be the big rave at the moment. But it is really that useful compared to other forms of automated testing? Intuitively I would guess that automated integration testing is way more useful than unit testing. In my experience the most bugs seems to be in the interaction between modules, and not so much the actual (usual limited) logic of each unit. Also regressions often happened because of changing interfaces between modules (and changed pre and post-conditions.) Am I misunderstanding something, or why are unit testing getting so much focus compared to integration testing? It is simply because it is assumed that integration testing is something you have, and unit testing is the next thing we need to learn to apply as developers? Or maybe unit testing simply yields the highest gain compared to the complexity of automating it? What are you experience with automated unit testing, automated integration testing, and automated acceptance testing, and in your experience what has yielded the highest ROI? and why? If you had to pick just one form of testing to be automated on your next project, which would it be? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Link between tests and user stories

    - by Sardathrion
    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 RESULT generates system tests. ROLE generates acceptance tests. 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?

    Read the article

  • Should programmers itemize testing in testing? [on hold]

    - by Patton77
    I recently hired a programming team to do a port of my iPad app to the iPhone and Android platforms. Now, in a separate contract, I am asking them to implement a bunch of tips on how to play the app, similar like you would find in Candy Crush or Cut the Rope. They want to charge 12 hours @ $35/hr for the "Testing all of the Tips", telling me that normally it would take them more than 25 hours but that they will 'bear the difference'. I am not familiar with this level of itemization, but maybe it's a new practice? I am used to devs doing their own quality control, and then having a testing/acceptance period. They are using Cocos 2D-X, and they say that the tips going to multiple platforms makes all of the hours jack up. I feel like they might be overcharging, and it's difficult for me to know because it's kind of like with a mechanic. "It took us 5 hours to replace the radiator". How can you dispute that? It seems to me that most of you would charge for the work but NOT for hours that you are 'testing'. Am I missing something? Thanks for any help and advice you can give!

    Read the article

  • Writing Acceptance test cases

    - by HH_
    We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing best practices for a unit testing newbie

    - by wilhil
    In recent years, I have only written small components for people in larger projects or small tools. I have never written a unit test and it always seems like learning how to write them and actually making one takes a lot longer than simply firing up the program and testing for real. I am just about to start a fairly large scale project that could take a few months to complete and whilst I will try to test elements as I write them (like always), I am wondering if unit testing could save me time. I was just wondering if anyone could give good advice: Should I be looking at unit testing at the start of the project and possibly adopt a TDD approach. Should I just write tests as I go along, after each section is complete. Should I complete the project and then write unit tests at the end.

    Read the article

  • Isolating test data in acceptance tests

    - by Matt Phillips
    I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

    Read the article

  • Automated Acceptance tests under specific contraints

    - by HH_
    This is a follow up to my previous question, which was a bit general, so I'll be asking for a more precise situation. I want to automate acceptance testing on a web application. Briefly, this application allows the user to create contracts for subscribers with the two constraints: You cannot create more than one contract for a subscriber. Once a contract is created, it cannot be deleted (from the UI) Let's say TestCreate is a test case with tests for the normal creation of a contract. The constraints have introduced complexities to the testing process, mainly dependencies between test cases and test executions. Before we run TestCreate we need to make sure that the application is in a suitable state (the subscriber has no contract) If we run TestCreate twice, the second run will fail since the state of the application will have changed. So we need to revert back to the initial state (i.e. delete the contract), which is impossible to do from the UI. More generally, after each test case we should guarantee that the state is reverted back. And since, in this case, it is impossible to do it from the UI, how do you handle this? Possible solution: I thought about doing a backup of the database in the state that I desire, and after each test case, run a script which deletes the db and restores the backup. However, I find that to be too heavy to do for each single test case. In addition, what if some information are stored in files? or in multiple or unaccessible databases? My question: In this situation, what would an experienced tester do to write automated and maintanable tests. Thank you. More info: I'm trying to integrate tests into a BDD framework, which I find to be a neat solution for test documentation and communication, but it does not solve this particular problem (it even makes it harder)

    Read the article

  • Manual testing Vs Automated testing

    - by mgj
    Respected all, As many know testing can be mainly classified into manual and automated testing. With regard to this certain questions come to mind. Hope you can help... They include: What is the basic difference between the two types of testing? What are the elements of challenges involved in both manual and automated testing? What are the different skill sets required by a software tester for manual and automated testing respectively? What are the different job prospects and growth opportunities among software testers who do manual testing automated testing respectively? Is manual testing under rated to automated testing in anyway(s)? If yes, kindly specify the way. How differently are the manual testers treated in comparison to automated testers in the corporate world?( If they truly are differentiated in any terms as such ) I hope you can share your knowledge in answering these questions.. Thank you for your time..:)

    Read the article

  • blocking bad bots with robots.txt in 2012 [closed]

    - by Rachel Sparks
    does it still work good? I have this: # Generated using http://solidshellsecurity.com services # Begin block Bad-Robots from robots.txt User-agent: asterias Disallow:/ User-agent: BackDoorBot/1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: Black Hole Disallow:/ User-agent: BlowFish/1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: BotALot Disallow:/ User-agent: BuiltBotTough Disallow:/ User-agent: Bullseye/1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: BunnySlippers Disallow:/ User-agent: Cegbfeieh Disallow:/ User-agent: CheeseBot Disallow:/ User-agent: CherryPicker Disallow:/ User-agent: CherryPickerElite/1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: CherryPickerSE/1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: CopyRightCheck Disallow:/ User-agent: cosmos Disallow:/ User-agent: Crescent Disallow:/ User-agent: Crescent Internet ToolPak HTTP OLE Control v.1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: DittoSpyder Disallow:/ User-agent: EmailCollector Disallow:/ User-agent: EmailSiphon Disallow:/ User-agent: EmailWolf Disallow:/ User-agent: EroCrawler Disallow:/ User-agent: ExtractorPro Disallow:/ User-agent: Foobot Disallow:/ User-agent: Harvest/1.5 Disallow:/ User-agent: hloader Disallow:/ User-agent: httplib Disallow:/ User-agent: humanlinks Disallow:/ User-agent: InfoNaviRobot Disallow:/ User-agent: JennyBot Disallow:/ User-agent: Kenjin Spider Disallow:/ User-agent: Keyword Density/0.9 Disallow:/ User-agent: LexiBot Disallow:/ User-agent: libWeb/clsHTTP Disallow:/ User-agent: LinkextractorPro Disallow:/ User-agent: LinkScan/8.1a Unix Disallow:/ User-agent: LinkWalker Disallow:/ User-agent: LNSpiderguy Disallow:/ User-agent: lwp-trivial Disallow:/ User-agent: lwp-trivial/1.34 Disallow:/ User-agent: Mata Hari Disallow:/ User-agent: Microsoft URL Control - 5.01.4511 Disallow:/ User-agent: Microsoft URL Control - 6.00.8169 Disallow:/ User-agent: MIIxpc Disallow:/ User-agent: MIIxpc/4.2 Disallow:/ User-agent: Mister PiX Disallow:/ User-agent: moget Disallow:/ User-agent: moget/2.1 Disallow:/ User-agent: mozilla/4 Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; BullsEye; Windows 95) Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95) Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 98) Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows NT) Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows XP) Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 2000) Disallow:/ User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows ME) Disallow:/ User-agent: mozilla/5 Disallow:/ User-agent: NetAnts Disallow:/ User-agent: NICErsPRO Disallow:/ User-agent: Offline Explorer Disallow:/ User-agent: Openfind Disallow:/ User-agent: Openfind data gathere Disallow:/ User-agent: ProPowerBot/2.14 Disallow:/ User-agent: ProWebWalker Disallow:/ User-agent: QueryN Metasearch Disallow:/ User-agent: RepoMonkey Disallow:/ User-agent: RepoMonkey Bait & Tackle/v1.01 Disallow:/ User-agent: RMA Disallow:/ User-agent: SiteSnagger Disallow:/ User-agent: SpankBot Disallow:/ User-agent: spanner Disallow:/ User-agent: suzuran Disallow:/ User-agent: Szukacz/1.4 Disallow:/ User-agent: Teleport Disallow:/ User-agent: TeleportPro Disallow:/ User-agent: Telesoft Disallow:/ User-agent: The Intraformant Disallow:/ User-agent: TheNomad Disallow:/ User-agent: TightTwatBot Disallow:/ User-agent: Titan Disallow:/ User-agent: toCrawl/UrlDispatcher Disallow:/ User-agent: True_Robot Disallow:/ User-agent: True_Robot/1.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: turingos Disallow:/ User-agent: URLy Warning Disallow:/ User-agent: VCI Disallow:/ User-agent: VCI WebViewer VCI WebViewer Win32 Disallow:/ User-agent: Web Image Collector Disallow:/ User-agent: WebAuto Disallow:/ User-agent: WebBandit Disallow:/ User-agent: WebBandit/3.50 Disallow:/ User-agent: WebCopier Disallow:/ User-agent: WebEnhancer Disallow:/ User-agent: WebmasterWorldForumBot Disallow:/ User-agent: WebSauger Disallow:/ User-agent: Website Quester Disallow:/ User-agent: Webster Pro Disallow:/ User-agent: WebStripper Disallow:/ User-agent: WebZip Disallow:/ User-agent: WebZip/4.0 Disallow:/ User-agent: Wget Disallow:/ User-agent: Wget/1.5.3 Disallow:/ User-agent: Wget/1.6 Disallow:/ User-agent: WWW-Collector-E Disallow:/ User-agent: Xenu's Disallow:/ User-agent: Xenu's Link Sleuth 1.1c Disallow:/ User-agent: Zeus Disallow:/ User-agent: Zeus 32297 Webster Pro V2.9 Win32 Disallow:/

    Read the article

  • In rails, what defines unit testing as opposed to other kinds of testing

    - by junky
    Initially I thought this was simple: unit testing for models with other testing such as integration for controller and browser testing for views. But more recently I've seen a lot of references to unit testing that doesn't seem to exactly follow this format. Is it possible to have a unit test of a controller? Does that mean that just one method is called? What's the distinction? What does unit testing really means in my rails world?

    Read the article

  • Is unit testing development or testing?

    - by Rubio
    I had a discussion with a testing manager about the role of unit and integration testing. She requested that developers report what they have unit and integration tested and how. My perspective is that unit and integration testing are part of the development process, not the testing process. Beyond semantics what I mean is that unit and integration tests should not be included in the testing reports and systems testers should not be concerned about them. My reasoning is based on two things. Unit and integration tests are planned and performed against an interface and a contract, always. Regardless of whether you use formalized contracts you still test what e.g. a method is supposed to do, i.e. a contract. In integration testing you test the interface between two distinct modules. The interface and the contract determine when the test passes. But you always test a limited part of the whole system. Systems testing on the other hand is planned and performed against the system specifications. The spec determines when the test passes. I don't see any value in communicating the breadth and depth of unit and integration tests to the (systems) tester. Suppose I write a report that lists what kind of unit tests are performed on a particular business layer class. What is he/she supposed to take away from that? Judging what should and shouldn't be tested from that is a false conclusion because the system may still not function the way the specs require even though all unit and integration tests pass. This might seem like useless academic discussion but if you work in a strictly formal environment as I do, it's actually important in determining how we do things. Anyway, am I totally wrong? (Sorry for the long post.)

    Read the article

  • Differences between software testing processes and techniques?

    - by Aptos
    I get confused between these terms. For examples, should Unit testing be listed as a software testing process or technique? I think unit testing is a software testing technique. And how about Test driven development? Can you give me some examples for software testing processes and techniques? In my opinion, software testing process is a part of the software development life cycle. For example, if we use V-Model, the software testing process will be System test, Acceptance test, Integration Test... Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? [closed]

    - by MushinNoShin
    Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? A co-worker believes we can reduce the manual user testing we need to do by adding more unit tests. Is this dangerous? Unit tests seem to have a very different purpose than user testing. Aren't unit tests to inform design and allow breaking changes to be caught early? Isn't that fundamentally different than determining if an aspect of the system is correct as a whole of the system? Is this a case of substituting apples for oranges?

    Read the article

  • Where should Acceptance tests be written against?

    - by Jonn
    I'm starting to get into writing automated Acceptance tests and I'm quite confused where to write these tests against, specifically what layer in the app. Most examples I've seen are Acceptance tests written against the Domain but how about tests like: Given Incorrect Data When the user submits the form Then Play an Error Beep These seem to be fit for the UI and not for the Domain, or probably even the Service layer.

    Read the article

  • Should programmers itemize testing for projects? [on hold]

    - by Patton77
    I recently hired a programming team to do a port of my iPad app to the iPhone and Android platforms. Now, in a separate contract, I am asking them to implement a bunch of tips on how to play the app, similar like you would find in Candy Crush or Cut the Rope. They want to charge 12 hours @ $35/hr for the "Testing all of the Tips", telling me that normally it would take them more than 25 hours but that they will 'bear the difference'. I am not familiar with this level of itemization, but maybe it's a new practice? I am used to devs doing their own quality control, and then having a testing/acceptance period. They are using Cocos 2D-X, and they say that the tips going to multiple platforms makes all of the hours jack up. I feel like they might be overcharging, and it's difficult for me to know because it's kind of like with a mechanic. "It took us 5 hours to replace the radiator". How can you dispute that? It seems to me that most of you would charge for the work but NOT for hours that you are 'testing'. Am I missing something? Thanks for any help and advice you can give!

    Read the article

  • Global User Experience Research: Mobile

    - by ultan o'broin
    A shout out to the usableapps.oracle.com blog article Going Native to Understand Mobile Workers. Oracle is a global company and with all that revenue coming from outside the US, international usability research is essential. So read up about how the Applications User Experience team went about this important user-centered ethnographic research. Personalization is king in the mobile space. Going native is a great way to uncover exactly what users want as they work and use their mobile devices, but you need to do it worldwide!

    Read the article

  • Can unit tests verify software requirements?

    - by Peter Smith
    I have often heard unit tests help programmers build confidence in their software. But is it enough for verifying that software requirements are met? I am losing confidence that software is working just because the unit tests pass. We have experienced some failures in production deployment due to an untested\unverified execution path. These failures are sometimes quite large, impact business operations and often requires an immediate fix. The failure is very rarely traced back to a failing unit test. We have large unit test bodies that have reasonable line coverage but almost all of these focus on individual classes and not on their interactions. Manual testing seems to be ineffective because the software being worked on is typically large with many execution paths and many integration points with other software. It is very painful to manually test all of the functionality and it never seems to flush out all the bugs. Are we doing unit testing wrong when it seems we still are failing to verify the software correctly before deployment? Or do most shops have another layer of automated testing in addition to unit tests?

    Read the article

  • Unit and Integration testing: How can it become a reflex

    - by LordOfThePigs
    All the programmers in my team are familiar with unit testing and integration testing. We have all worked with it. We have all written tests with it. Some of us even have felt an improved sense of trust in his/her own code. However, for some reason, writing unit/integration tests has not become a reflex for any of the members of the team. None of us actually feel bad when not writing unit tests at the same time as the actual code. As a result, our codebase is mostly uncovered by unit tests, and projects enter production untested. The problem with that, of course is that once your projects are in production and are already working well, it is virtually impossible to obtain time and/or budget to add unit/integration testing. The members of my team and myself are already familiar with the value of unit testing (1, 2) but it doesn't seem to help bringing unit testing into our natural workflow. In my experience making unit tests and/or a target coverage mandatory just results in poor quality tests and slows down team members simply because there is no self-generated motivation to produce these tests. Also as soon as pressure eases, unit tests are not written any more. My question is the following: Is there any methods that you have experimented with that helps build a dynamic/momentum inside the team, leading to people naturally wanting to create and maintain those tests?

    Read the article

  • Conversation as User Assistance

    - by ultan o'broin
    Applications User Experience members (Erika Web, Laurie Pattison, and I) attended the User Assistance Europe Conference in Stockholm, Sweden. We were impressed with the thought leadership and practical application of ideas in Anne Gentle's keynote address "Social Web Strategies for Documentation". After the conference, we spoke with Anne to explore the ideas further. Anne Gentle (left) with Applications User Experience Senior Director Laurie Pattison In Anne's book called Conversation and Community: The Social Web for Documentation, she explains how user assistance is undergoing a seismic shift. The direction is away from the old print manuals and online help concept towards a web-based, user community-driven solution using social media tools. User experience professionals now have a vast range of such tools to start and nurture this "conversation": blogs, wikis, forums, social networking sites, microblogging systems, image and video sharing sites, virtual worlds, podcasts, instant messaging, mashups, and so on. That user communities are a rich source of user assistance is not a surprise, but the extent of available assistance is. For example, we know from the Consortium for Service Innovation that there has been an 'explosion' of user-generated content on the web. User-initiated community conversations provide as much as 30 times the number of official help desk solutions for consortium members! The growing reliance on user community solutions is clearly a user experience issue. Anne says that user assistance as conversation "means getting closer to users and helping them perform well. User-centered design has been touted as one of the most important ideas developed in the last 20 years of workplace writing. Now writers can take the idea of user-centered design a step further by starting conversations with users and enabling user assistance in interactions." Some of Anne's favorite examples of this paradigm shift from the world of traditional documentation to community conversation include: Writer Bob Bringhurst's blog about Adobe InDesign and InCopy products and Adobe's community help The Microsoft Development Network Community Center ·The former Sun (now Oracle) OpenDS wiki, NetBeans Ruby and other community approaches to engage diverse audiences using screencasts, wikis, and blogs. Cisco's customer support wiki, EMC's community, as well as Symantec and Intuit's approaches The efforts of Ubuntu, Mozilla, and the FLOSS community generally Adobe Writer Bob Bringhurst's Blog Oracle is not without a user community conversation too. Besides the community discussions and blogs around documentation offerings, we have the My Oracle Support Community forums, Oracle Technology Network (OTN) communities, wiki, blogs, and so on. We have the great work done by our user groups and customer councils. Employees like David Haimes reach out, and enthusiastic non-employee gurus like Chet Justice (OracleNerd), Floyd Teter and Eddie Awad provide great "how-to" information too. But what does this paradigm shift mean for existing technical writers as users turn away from the traditional printable PDF manual deliverables? We asked Anne after the conference. The writer role becomes one of conversation initiator or enabler. The role evolves, along with the process, as the users define their concept of user assistance and terms of engagement with the product instead of having it pre-determined. It is largely a case now of "inventing the job while you're doing it, instead of being hired for it" Anne said. There is less emphasis on formal titles. Anne mentions that her own title "Content Stacker" at OpenStack; others use titles such as "Content Curator" or "Community Lead". However, the role remains one essentially about communications, "but of a new type--interacting with users, moderating, curating content, instead of sitting down to write a manual from start to finish." Clearly then, this role is open to more than professional technical writers. Product managers who write blogs, developers who moderate forums, support professionals who update wikis, rock star programmers with a penchant for YouTube are ideal. Anyone with the product knowledge, empathy for the user, and flair for relationships on the social web can join in. Some even perform these roles already but do not realize it. Anne feels the technical communicator space will move from hiring new community conversation professionals (who are already active in the space through blogging, tweets, wikis, and so on) to retraining some existing writers over time. Our own research reveals that the established proponents of community user assistance even set employee performance objectives for internal content curators about the amount of community content delivered by people outside the organization! To take advantage of the conversations on the web as user assistance, enterprises must first establish where on the spectrum their community lies. "What is the line between community willingness to contribute and the enterprise objectives?" Anne asked. "The relationship with users must be managed and also measured." Anne believes that the process can start with a "just do it" approach. Begin by reaching out to existing user groups, individual bloggers and tweeters, forum posters, early adopter program participants, conference attendees, customer advisory board members, and so on. Use analytical tools to measure the level of conversation about your products and services to show a return on investment (ROI), winning management support. Anne emphasized that success with the community model is dependent on lowering the technical and motivational barriers so that users can readily contribute to the conversation. Simple tools must be provided, and guidelines, if any, must be straightforward but not mandatory. The conversational approach is one where traditional style and branding guides do not necessarily apply. Tools and infrastructure help users to create content easily, to search and find the information online, read it, rate it, translate it, and participate further in the content's evolution. Recognizing contributors by using ratings on forums, giving out Twitter kudos, conference invitations, visits to headquarters, free products, preview releases, and so on, also encourages the adoption of the conversation model. The move to conversation as user assistance is not free, but there is a business ROI. The conversational model means that customer service is enhanced, as user experience moves from a functional to a valued, emotional level. Studies show a positive correlation between loyalty and financial performance (Consortium for Service Innovation, 2010), and as customer experience and loyalty become key differentiators, user experience professionals cannot explore the model's possibilities. The digital universe (measured at 1.2 million petabytes in 2010) is doubling every 12 to 18 months, and 70 percent of that universe consists of user-generated content (IDC, 2010). Conversation as user assistance cannot be ignored but must be embraced. It is a time to manage for abundance, not scarcity. Besides, the conversation approach certainly sounds more interesting, rewarding, and fun than the traditional model! I would like to thank Anne for her time and thoughts, and recommend that all user assistance professionals read her book. You can follow Anne on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/annegentle. Oracle's Acrolinx IQ deployment was used to author this article.

    Read the article

  • Using Completed User Stories to Estimate Future User Stories

    - by David Kaczynski
    In Scrum/Agile, the complexity of a user story can be estimated in story points. After completing some user stories, a programmer or team of programmers can use those experiences to better estimate how much time it might take to complete a future user story. Is there a methodology for breaking down the complexity of user stories into quantifiable or quantifiable attributes? For example, User Story X requires a rich, new view in the GUI, but User Story X can perform most of its functionality using existing business logic on the server. On a scale of 1 to 10, User Story X has a complexity of 7 on the client and a complexity of 2 on the server. After User Story X is completed, someone asks how long would it take to complete User Story Y, which has a complexity of 3 on the client and 6 on the server. Looking at how long it took to complete User Story X, we can make an educated estimate on how long it might take to complete User Story Y. I can imagine some other details: The complexity of one attribute (such as complexity of client) could have sub-attributes, such as number of steps in a sequence, function points, etc. Several other attributes that could be considered as well, such as the programmer's familiarity with the system or the number of components/interfaces involved These attributes could be accumulated into some sort of user story checklist. To reiterate: is there an existing methodology for decomposing the complexity of a user story into complexity of attributes/sub-attributes, or is using completed user stories as indicators in estimating future user stories more of an informal process?

    Read the article

  • How and when to use UNIT testing properly

    - by Zebs
    I am an iOS developer. I have read about unit testing and how it is used to test specific pieces of your code. A very quick example has to do with processing JSON data onto a database. The unit test reads a file from the project bundle and executes the method that is in charge of processing JSON data. But I dont get how this is different from actually running the app and testing with the server. So my question might be a bit general, but I honestly dont understand the proper use of unit testing, or even how it is useful; I hope the experienced programmers that surf around StackOverflow can help me. Any help is very much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • User Acceptance Testing Defect Classification when developing for an outside client

    - by DannyC
    I am involved in a large development project in which we (a very small start up) are developing for an outside client (a very large company). We recently received their first output from UAT testing of a fairly small iteration, which listed 12 'defects', triaged into three categories : Low, Medium and High. The issue we have is around whether everything in this list should be recorded as a 'defect' - some of the issues they found would be better described as refinements, or even 'nice-to-haves', and some we think are not defects at all. They client's QA lead says that it is standard for them to label every issues they identify as a defect, however, we are a bit uncomfortable about this. Whilst the relationship is good, we don't see a huge problem with this, but we are concerned that, if the relationship suffers in the future, these lists of 'defects' could prove costly for us. We don't want to come across as being difficult, or taking things too personally here, and we are happy to make all of the changes identified, however we are a bit concerned especially as there is a uneven power balance at play in our relationship. Are we being paranoid here? Or could we be setting ourselves up for problems down the line by agreeing to this classification?

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of automated testing?

    - by jkohlhepp
    There are a number of questions on this site that give plenty of information about the benefits that can be gained from automated testing. But I didn't see anything that represented the other side of the coin: what are the disadvantages? Everything in life is a tradeoff and there are no silver bullets, so surely there must be some valid reasons not to do automated testing. What are they? Here's a few that I've come up with: Requires more initial developer time for a given feature Requires a higher skill level of team members Increase tooling needs (test runners, frameworks, etc.) Complex analysis required when a failed test in encountered - is this test obsolete due to my change or is it telling me I made a mistake? Edit I should say that I am a huge proponent of automated testing, and I'm not looking to be convinced to do it. I'm looking to understand what the disadvantages are so when I go to my company to make a case for it I don't look like I'm throwing around the next imaginary silver bullet. Also, I'm explicity not looking for someone to dispute my examples above. I am taking as true that there must be some disadvantages (everything has trade-offs) and I want to understand what those are.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >