Related
When I am looking into approach's used for the development of API's, I came across multiple approaches like Code-First, API-First, Design-API-First.
I clearly understand Code-First approach how it is different from other two. But I am not able to get the exact difference between API-First and Design-First approach.
Summary from links:
API First:
API's are considered as first class citizens by the organization.
You design each of your APIs around a contract written in an API
description language like Open API for consistency, reusability, and broad
interoperability.
Design-API-First:
Describing every API design in an iterative way that both humans and computers can understand before you write any code.
API design-first is about the process of creating the API itself.
In design API first approach there will be lot of collaboration in designing of the API.
My understanding by far:
I feel 1 and 2 points of Design-API-First is saying same thing as API First because for example Open API specification is understood by both humans and computers. Is there anything more to it?
So, the only difference there will be collaboration added here by involving stakeholders, developers, customers etc?
So, when we use Design API First, we can say we are also using API-First?
References:
Probably I am able to get the exact context from the following links,
please use them and see if you can get the right understand of it and
address this question.
https://blog.stoplight.io/api-first-vs.-api-design-first-a-comprehensive-guide
https://blog.axway.com/product-insights/amplify-platform/application-integration/api-first-design-api-first
https://www.ecosmob.com/design-first-or-api-first-where-does-future-lies/
The company I work for is starting a new web application, and I have requested that front end developers make this application Automation Friendly.
The previous application was using the react framework, very few elements had unique ID's (or any unique identifier at all). This time around, I have asked the developers to include a custom data attribute, specifically for automation.
I am looking for anyone who may have experience in this kind of situation.
What have you asked your developers to do to assist in automation?
Are there any standards, or guidelines for naming elements in an application to suit Selenium automation?
are custom data attributes the best way to go? are there other options?
Any advice/guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Web Applications can be difficult to test if they aren’t made with testing in mind. This is especially true for Single Page Applications (SPAs). SPAs support heavy interaction without incurring additional page loads (e.g. Facebook, Gmail). Instead of page loads, these SPAs use AJAX requests to relay data back and forth from the server.
As per #ChrisChua from ThousandEyes these are some of the best practices to keep in mind as you develop your web application to make testing easier:
Add classes that are meaningful.
Classes should indicate the element’s functionality and state.
Use functional names in IDs and classes for action elements.
Dynamically generated classes and IDs are not helpful for testing.
Add targetable DOM feedback to indicate application state.
Never hard-code content in test code!
Conclusion
It's true some of these are not easy changes, as the developer may have to think harder about using test-friendly designs rather than "something that just works". However, it will definitely help with maintainability of the testing, which would reduce costs in the long run.
tl; dr
A couple of references:
Nicolas Gallagher’s article on HTML Semantics and Front-end Architecture
Yandex’s Block Element Modifier
W3C’s recommendation on good class names
Pamela Fox’s article on Frontend Architectures
Test Driven Development makes it easier to automate. In my opinion, testers should be developers, or ex-developers who are good at finding and preventing mistakes. Write the tests in the same project that the solution is being developed in. Developers can also put in ids, even though they don’t want to sometimes, and if the “testers” are good they can even submit pull requests (in GitHub for example) for code improvements that will allow them to test better. Think of testers as a piece of your development team, where everyone is allowed to contribute code. It helps with accountability and improves autonomy. Everyone is there to help each other and if all the code is in the same project, and all code is reviewed and approved before merging to master, everyone is a potential developer if everyone is IT. The old days of manual testing are dying. Separating Dev from Testing is a brick wall. Tear it down.
So I'm looking into introducing a more extensive testing process and I was reading about Functional Testing. I've worked with Scenario Testing before, but I'm fairly new to the term Functional Testing.
It seems that the two are synonymous, however I've not been able to find any information on whether they are synonymous or whether one is a subcategory of the other or whether they are two separate things. I've searched on stackoverflow, I've read the wiki pages for both, I've read some blogs on both and some university pages on both and can't seem to find the answer.
So as the title says; is there a difference between Scenario Testing and Functional Testing or are they synonymous?
Scenario testing got introduced with BDD (Behavorial driven development). So, basically while testing a single scenario, you will most of the times have multiple functional testing scenarios. The aim of Scenario testing is to test the scenario as a whole and BDD promotes it majorly.
Let me try to elaborate it with an example. So, say that a project is following BDD and the scenario to be tested is usually specified in the form of Acceptance Criteria as below:
As an authenticated user, in order to withdraw cash, I should be able to use the ATM.
So, in this case to test this Scenario, you would need multiple functional tests to run. Listing few of them below:
Authenticate user
Enter valid cash to withdraw
Cash withdrawn
This just one flow and there will be multiple positive and negative functional tests involved in this scenario which need to be designed.
So, we can say that a scenario consists of multiple functional tests. However, they are not synonyms since Scenario testing can also include scenarios related to performance, usability testing etc. and is not just restricted to functional testing.
Hope I could resolve your query to certain extent.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 6 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
Are functional testing and integration testing the same?
You begin your testing through unit testing, then after completing unit testing you go for integration testing where you test the system as a whole. Is functional testing the same as integration testing? You still taking the system as a whole and testing it for functionality conformance.
Integration testing is when you test more than one component and how they function together. For instance, how another system interacts with your system, or the database interacts with your data abstraction layer. Usually, this requires a fully installed system, although in its purest forms it does not.
Functional testing is when you test the system against the functional requirements of the product. Product/Project management usually writes these up and QA formalizes the process of what a user should see and experience, and what the end result of those processes should be. Depending on the product, this can be automated or not.
Functional Testing:
Yes, we are testing the product or software as a whole functionally whether it is functionally working properly or not (testing buttons, links etc.)
For example: Login page.
you provide the username and password, you test whether it is taking you to home page or not.
Integration Testing:
Yes, you test the integrated software only but you test where the data flow is happening and is there any changes happening in the database.
For example: Sending e-mail
You send one mail to someone, there is a data flow and also change in database (the sent table increases value by 1)
Remember - clicking links and images is not integration testing. Hope you understood why, because there is no change in database by just clicking on a link.
Hope this helped you.
Functional Testing: It is a process of testing where each and every component of the module is tested. Eg: If a web page contains text field, radio botton, Buttons and Drop down etc components needed to be checked.
Integration Testing: Process where the dataflow between 2 modules are checked.
This is an important distinction, but unfortunately you will never find agreement. The problem is that most developers define these from their own point of view. It's very similar to the debate over Pluto. (If it were closer to the Sun, would it be a planet?)
Unit testing is easy to define. It tests the CUT (Code Under Test) and nothing else. (Well, as little else as possible.) That means mocks, fakes, and fixtures.
At the other end of the spectrum there is what many people call system integration testing. That's testing as much as possible, but still looking for bugs in your own CUT.
But what about the vast expanse between?
For example, what if you test just a little bit more than the CUT? What if you include a Fibonacci function, instead of using a fixture which you had injected? I would call that functional testing, but the world disagrees with me.
What if you include time() or rand()? Or what if you call http://google.com? I would call that system testing, but again, I am alone.
Why does this matter? Because system-tests are unreliable. They are necessary, but they will sometimes fail for reasons beyond your control. On the other hand, functional tests should always pass, not fail randomly; if they are fast, they might as well be used from the start in order to use Test-Driven Development without writing too many tests for your internal implementation. In other words, I think that unit-tests can be more trouble than they are worth, and I have good company.
I put tests on 3 axes, with all their zeroes at unit-testing:
Functional-testing: using real code deeper and deeper down your call-stack.
Integration-testing: higher and higher up your call-stack; in other words, testing your CUT by running the code which would use it.
System-testing: more and more unrepeatable operations (O/S scheduler, clock, network, etc.)
A test can easily be all 3, to varying degrees.
I would say that both are tightly linked to each other and very tough to distinguish between them.
In my view, Integration testing is a subset of functional testing.
Functionality testing is based on the initial requirements you receive. You will test the application behaviour is as expected with the requirements.
When it comes to integration testing, it is the interaction between modules. If A module sends an input, B module able to process it or not.
Integration testing - Integration testing is nothing but the testing of different modules. You have to test relationship between modules. For ex you open facebook then you see login page after entering login id and password you can see home page of facebook hence login page is one module and home page is another module. you have to check only relationship between them means when you logged in then only home page must be open not message box or anything else. There are 2 main types of integration testing TOP-DOWN approach and BOTTOM UP approach.
Functional Testing - In functional testing you have to only think about input and output. In this case you have to think like a actual user. Testing of What input you gave and what output you got is Functional testing. you have to only observe output. In functional testing you don't need to test coding of application or software.
In a Functional testing tester focuses only Functionality and sub functionality of application. Functionality of app should be working properly or not.
In integration testing tester have to check dependency between modules or sub-modules.Example for modules records should be fetching and displayed correctly in another module.
Integration Test:-
When Unit testing is done and issues are resolved to the related components then all the required components need to integrate under the one system so that it can perform an operation.
After combining the components of the system,To test that whether the system is working properly or not,this kind of testing is called as Integration Testing.
Functional Testing:-
The Testing is mainly divided into two categories as
1.Functional Testing
2.Non-Functional Testing
**Functional Testing:-
To test that whether the software is working according to the requirements of the user or not.
**Non-Functional Testing:-
To test that whether the software satisfies the quality criteria like Stress Test,Security test etc.
Usually,Customer will provide the requirements for Functional Test only and for Non Functional test,Requirements should not be mentioned but the application necessarily perform those activity.
Integration testing It can be seen as how the different modules of the system work together.
We mostly refers to the integrated functionality of the different modules, rather different components of the system.
For any system or software product to work efficiently, every component has to be in sync with each other.
Most of the time tool we used for integration testing will be chosen that we used for unit testing.
It is used in complex situations, when unit testing proves to be insufficient to test the system.
Functional Testing
It can be defined as testing the individual functionality of modules.
It refers to testing the software product at an individual level, to check its functionality.
Test cases are developed to check the software for expected and unexpected results.
This type of testing is carried out more from a user perspective. That is to say, it considers the expectation of the user for a type of input.
It is also referred as black-box testing as well as close-box testing
Checking the functionality of the application is generally known as functional testing, where as the integration testing is to check the flow of data from one module to other.
Lets take example of money transfer app.Suppose we have page in which we enter all the credentials and if we press transfer button and after that if we getting any success, Then this is functional testing. But in same example if we verify the amount transfer then it is integration testing.
Authors diverge a lot on this. I don't believe there is "the" correct interpretation for this. It really depends.
For example: most Rails developers consider unit tests as model tests, functional tests as controller tests and integration tests as those using something like Capybara to explore the application from a final user's perspective - that is, navigating through the page's generated HTML, using the DOM to check for expectations.
There is also acceptance tests, which in turn are a "live" documentation of the system (usually they use Gherkin to make it possible to write those in natural language), describing all of the application's features through multiple scenarios, which are in turn automated by a developer. Those, IMHO, could be also considered as both, functional tests and integration tests.
Once you understand the key concept behind each of those, you get to be more flexible regarding the right or wrong. So, again IMHO, a functional test could also be considered an integration test. For the integration test, depending on the kind of integration it's exercising, it may not be considerate a functional test - but you generally have some requirements in mind when you are writing an integration test, so most of the time it can be also considerate as a functional test.
Are use cases just multiple user stories??
What are the benefits of using user stories over use cases.. and vice-versa... When to use one over other...
Does all agile methodologies uses user stories??
Actually, the original use cases (see Jacobson's OOSE) were pretty lightweight, much as user stories are now. Over time, they evolved until a common format for "use cases" now is a complicated document with inputs, outputs, inheritance, uses relationships, pseudocode, etc. Programmers, in general, try to convert everything into programming.
In any case, the attempt to defined what distinguishes a "use case" from a "user story" fro a "scenario" is pretty futile, as it's hard to find two authorities who agree.\
Personally, I find the pattern "[Actor] [verbs] [noun] to get [business value]" helpful. If it gets over about a paragraph of text, it may be too big.
When it comes down to it "agile" is just a label, and people disagree over exactly what it means. Similarly people call very different things "use cases."
In my experience the primary difference between the two is that a user story is focused on the user, and is usually shorter and less formal - ideally, it should easily fit on a postcard. It probably doesn't give details of error handling etc.
Use cases can be much more formal (although some people write them informally too) - they focus on every interaction with the system, and may well go into more detail about several different systems/actors/etc within the same use case.
That's just my experience though - chances are everyone will have used these tools in different ways. I wouldn't get too hung up about labels - just use what works for your project.
Use cases aren't compilations of user stories.
User stories are generally much simpler than use cases. I think use cases try to cover absolutely everything to do with the behaviour of some aspect of the system. That is, all behaviours, all error paths and all exception handling.
The recommended template for a user is:
As a (role) I want (something) so that (benefit)
(Thanks Mike Cohn for providing this simple template)
Descriptions of behaviour expressed like this are more agile.
This sort of template lets you describe behaviour using different levels of detail. For example:
for those stories being implemented in a much later sprint, you can describe behaviour in a high level sort of way, e.g. as an ops team member I want to monitor the system remotely so that I can determine system health while on the road.
for those stories being implemented in the next sprint, you can describe behaviour is a slightly more detailed way, e.g. as an ops team member I want to have a dedicated ops only login so that I can check system health.
for those stories being implemented in the current sprint, you can describe behaviour in a highly detailed way, e.g. as an ops team member I want to have a web interface so that I can check current status of the ingest ftp server.
IMHO Use cases are much more carved in stone! And hence can be a problem to update after the initial version.
HTH
cheers,
Rob
In one word, no.
Use Cases are typically detailed specifications laying out how some particular piece of functionality is going to work, or how a specific user is going to utilize the system. It typically is in the voice of a specific user (or Actor) and is fairly self-contained.
A user story on the other hand is "an invitation for discussion". It is typically one or two sentences. Here is one good resource for that. And Mike Cohn's User Stories Applied is well worth it.
The typical syntax is "As a <user> I need <functionality> to achieve <business value>", or "To achieve <business value> as a <user> I need <functionality>" which drives home the value of the story.
User stories are not meant to be stand-alone, but meant to invite discussion of the story between the developer and the customer (or customer proxy).
You can think of a usecase as a user story, but not the other way around. A usecase will cover multiple "endings" to the story, special requirements (e.g. form fields must be entered in format xyz, and show error message 123 if the user enters a field in the wrong format). Also, a usecase can include additional references to external documents, such as security guidelines.
User Stories is a tool used in Agile development to make sure you create the product your user really needs.
It describes rather why you should make this or that feature instead of HOW or WHAT feature.
From my personal experience, it's a great way to balance the client's and developer's vision to create a better product.
Unlike US aUse Case focuses on WHO uses your product. Here is the difference.
I'd say there is no other such instrument for an Agile developer as User Stories. If you want to learn how to write them successfully, check out this post.