Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Evaluation: How to define Test Scenarios on the Board #44

Open
bofalke opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Evaluation: How to define Test Scenarios on the Board #44

bofalke opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bofalke
Copy link
Contributor

bofalke commented Aug 17, 2023

Link to Board: https://app.prooph-board.com/inspectio/board/b13afec8-cb3c-4e4a-b587-9db945a6db3d?cells=jGaiR2bwS37eJ5hv1s6QTF&clicks=1

Idea 1:

Prooph Context Boxfor Testcase
Prooph Feature Box for Test Scenario

Look for
Given Node and all connected Events
When Node and all connected Command
Then Node and all expected Data for test assertions

image

Idea 2:

Prooph Context Box for Test Scenario
Propph Feature Box for Given/When/Then

Events in Given will be executed before, commands in When will be executed for test and events/data in Then will be used for test assertions

image

Idea 3

Prooph Context Boxfor Testcase
Prooph Feature Box for Test Scenario

Use horizontal lines for Fiven/When/Then definition. Use information sticky notes to define test data for events/commands and assertion data.

image

@Juan-A-Jimenez
Copy link
Contributor

Decisions from the Meeting:

  • When definition is always a command: No need for additional Description/Metadata input because only commands can change something in the program
  • Given and Then definitions can be determined with the Command (When) node by using sources and target
  • Use horizontal lines for test data in YAML
  • For now add the Gherkin syntax into the metadata from the feature Element
  • The coloring for running, false, successful test can be ignored for now. We still need a way to communicate to the board or another way to solve this.
  • The bound context Element needs an entry in the metadata for cody to recognize it as testcase. As fallback the metadata from the feature can have the entry, too. (alternatively) At the moment the root is called "mode":"test"
  • We can adjust templates for MetaData input in our Testboard. Actually we should be able to. I just tried and didn't find the configuration. Maybe someone can check this and maybe ask how or why the configuration isn't there.

image

@codeliner
Copy link
Contributor

@Juan-A-Jimenez I'm going to check why you cannot see the metadata templates. Might be a permission issue. I'll let you know.

@codeliner
Copy link
Contributor

@Juan-A-Jimenez tomorrow you should have access to the board settings. I'm going to deploy a fix today evening. You're the owner of the board, but not an orga admin. That combination caused permission problems.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants