So I'm newly adapted to BDD and have been using Cucumber for Test Automation, but I also use the "Gherkin" style for writing acceptance tests (that I will hopefully be able to automate in the future, but since I'm a one-man show I have to do what I can with the time available)
That being said, I'm basing these acceptance test cases off of User Stories produced in Jira. The user stories are very typical IE:
As a user, I want to be able to Sign Out of my account, edit/change my password, and edit my name/account information.
Pretty basic User Story, so for my "Feature/Scenario" I have (Storing them in testrail for now):
Feature: User Account Functions I want the ability to sign out of my account, edit my password, and edit my user account information
Scenario: Given I have created an account And I am signed in When I select the Sign Out option Then I should be signed out from the web application Scenario: Given I have created an account And I am signed in When I go to my account page And change my password Then my password should be updated to the new password Scenario: Given I have created an account And I am signing in When I go to my account page And Edit my account information Then my account information should be saved with the new information But not contain any of the old information
So they just seem so...basic? and short. But the thing is I don't see the point in adding unnecessary detail (or imperative like steps to these). Is this right? I mean I'm pretty new to the BDD style/Gherkin style of writing. But I mean it gets the point across, I just look at it and it looks so short.
Maybe that's the point however? Because I could do a step by step test plan, but that doesn't really benefit anyone? Especially if I'm going to perhaps eventually automate these? But I'm thinking about for instance even if I didn't automate these, does the writing style still make sense?