I would agree with Laurent, and we have faced a very similar situation. Our team tests the APIs for data transport and parsing. The developer unit/component level tests were all against mock objects and data stores.
Unit tests are not always comprehensive so we built a 'fake server' to emulate various web services that we used for running additional ...
I think "acceptance tests" and "mocking services layers" don't go along. My feeling is that when you do acceptance/functional testing, then you run your whole system in a manner close to the way it will be used although you try to do it in a QA/preprod environment to be confident of the state of your system. If, for the reasons you mention, you can not do ...
This looks fine. BDD feature files is meant to be at a level to give useful information to product folks.
In each step you can call lower level steps if you want to give more specific information (or more reusable actions)
For this one for example
Given I am signed in
It might just call within it
// enter the username
Make testing the focus
For a given feature that you are discussing, as a group, go through what you plan for unit tests, integration tests and end-to-end tests. Talk about how you will do performance, security and usability testing for the feature.
Discuss what makes sense to test manually and what makes sense to automate
Discuss which tests you should ...
I like to keep the acceptance tests as close to the code as possible.
If your acceptance tests test from a user perspective I would locate them in the code repository of the website or mobile app.
If the same acceptance tests are used by both the website and the mobile app you could opt for creating a separate repository, but I think I would rather ...
One of the ways is Example Mapping.
All you need is a pack of coloured cards and pens and preferably a table.
Write the story on a yellow card and place it at the top of the table
Write the acceptance criteria and the already known rules on a blue card beneath the yellow card
Under each rule/AC add green cards with an example that illustrates it
How to store code in a repository has many factors.
How many people are working on this project?
Who is responsible for testing (devs only, devs and qa)?
What testing methods are in use: unit tests, integration tests, UI tests?
Is there a difference between end-to-end and full stack testing?
Are you the only one working on this project and are responsible ...
There are a few clarifications needed here, before I can help you out in the right direction, as per your query.
1- Are you working in an Agile/Scrum model?
2- Why are the 'Requirements' unclear?
3- Why do the user stories change so often?
4- Why are the user stories so vast?
I think you may find that your testing is hampered, and you are being set up ...
Sure you could use any of these or others out there or do your own. To start I think you should ask a few questions and get those answers.
What test output is needed?
This could be...just test it and call it good or it could be some kind of report which would indicate the test needs to produce results that match that criteria.
How can I functionally ...
I'm not sure there is a specific term for this. Anyways you can always come up with a term of your own and consult with your team whether that sounds appropriate for what you are doing.
I guess you can call it "Maintenance Testing" where you have a team continuously testing the live site for maintaining the proper execution of the site along with the design....
the answer to your first question is YES. You can definitely use Excel for creating acceptance tests. There are different types of acceptance testing:
User Acceptance test
Operational Acceptance test
Contract Acceptance testing
Compliance acceptance testing
So, I am assuming that you are planning to create acceptance tests for User Acceptance testing.
Cucumber won't magically make tests from your Gherkin features.
With all those tools you still have to write the step definitions and the code that actually makes the tests happen and maintain it. None of the BDD tools will help you do that and most of them make it hard to exploratory test.
If the acceptance is a sprint level its going to be harder to have ...
Every team works out its own process for handling bugs that escape to acceptance testing (or beyond).
The method I prefer works this way:
Any bug found during acceptance testing or later is triaged and prioritized.
Bugs are treated at the same level as user stories, and both are tracked in the same system.
If the bug is complex, it becomes a ...
I'd also add that seeing the story beforehand is a good way of making the Three Amigos session more likely to provide benefit.
Thinking up questions and issues on the spot when you've only just seen the story is a lot harder versus having a day or so (or even an hour or so to be honest).
If you are deciding to use better reusability in selenium-python, following are my experience based recommendations which are touch based with ISTQB Test Automation Best Practices:
How to structure or architect a test project with Python?
Better to follow generic Test Automation Architecture while building the repository:
The answer of the question depends on few factors:
If the acceptance tests are written in the same technology stack as the software under test and if the framework is testing only one product and not multiple products, then maybe it's better those tests to be part of the project repo and devs merges the qa branch into their feature branch.
If the ...
Working software is the primary measure of progress
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
These two phrases from the Agile Manifesto say that success is only achieved when the software solves the customers problems. And as I imagine you have experienced that when picking a fast-food meal, often we don't know what we want or how to solve things - ...
Q: How do you handle errors that occur in Acceptance Testing, in parallel with running / upcoming sprints?
Ans: Note the first agile value which says "individuals and interactions over processes and tools". So there is no need to waiting for the story to get completely build to do an Acceptance testing. I can provide a tip from my experience, check with ...
Benefits of gherkin non-automated:
Has rigid structure (given/when/then, steps and tables)
Can be more familiar to QA and DEV
Easy to put to source control and review changes as textual diffs
Can be eventually supplied with a glue which would execute those specs against an implementation or a model of such. Although most of the time that would still ...
As an alternative to feature-based testing, you can also test your SUT based on processes/use cases. Another way is to group coherent test cases into test suites. Then, it's OK to have dependencies between test cases, but test suites should still be independent.
However, IMHO, all these things are suboptimal—for all the reasons you've already mentioned. ...
In my experience, you can achieve a good balance with the following ATDD approach for each use case you are test driving:
Write your first test by interacting with the over-the-wire API of the microservice (e.g. REST API, JMS queue). This test will give you confidence that the "happy path" is working end to end.
Use service virtualization to provide over-...
The other thing that many companies neglect in Agile, Extreme and even Waterfall working is that you need to have a test section on board as well and while the developers are working to fulfill a given story point, feature or requirement the test team should be developing the tests, (in extreme these need to be developed before the developers start), and ...
The main difference between Acceptance and System testing is that Acceptance testing should be (in ideal world) defined before coding started. It is a suite of requirements/use cases agreed with customer, which must be passed to accept product. It is a part of "business". System test - it is a part of personal responsibility/quality of project QA. So, you ...
You could call this testing in production. There's been a lot of discussion of that - see for example:
Testing in Production: How we combined tests with monitoring, Jonathan Hare-Winton & Sam Cutler, The Guardian