Difference between revisions of "AcceptanceTesting"
Yrnclndymn (talk | contribs) m |
Yrnclndymn (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Business people and testers collaborating | Business people and testers collaborating | ||
| − | Top 5 | + | Top 5 reasons why teams fail with acceptance testing |
# No collaboration | # No collaboration | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
# Expecting acceptance tests to be a full regression suite | # Expecting acceptance tests to be a full regression suite | ||
# Focusing on tools | # Focusing on tools | ||
| + | # Acceptance testing is not considered as an 'value-adding' activity | ||
| + | |||
| + | Acceptance tests are a specification of a system - in order to be a good specification, they should be exemplars, but don't need to be dealing with every single edge case (if they are to remain readable/useable as documentation) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You could split out more exhaustive testing into a separate section, separate suite, or (better?) a separate tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Don't reject acceptance testing because you don't like the tool - start with the tasks you need to achieve. If it is difficult to automate, it doesn't mean it can be ignored - it is still an 'acceptance test' and it still needs to be run. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Definition of 'acceptance test': whatever you've agreed with the client (not just that that can be automated) | ||
Revision as of 04:18, 19 September 2009
Business people and testers collaborating
Top 5 reasons why teams fail with acceptance testing
- No collaboration
- Focusing on 'how' not on 'what'
- Tests unusable as live documentation
- Expecting acceptance tests to be a full regression suite
- Focusing on tools
- Acceptance testing is not considered as an 'value-adding' activity
Acceptance tests are a specification of a system - in order to be a good specification, they should be exemplars, but don't need to be dealing with every single edge case (if they are to remain readable/useable as documentation)
You could split out more exhaustive testing into a separate section, separate suite, or (better?) a separate tool.
Don't reject acceptance testing because you don't like the tool - start with the tasks you need to achieve. If it is difficult to automate, it doesn't mean it can be ignored - it is still an 'acceptance test' and it still needs to be run.
Definition of 'acceptance test': whatever you've agreed with the client (not just that that can be automated)
