i have this use-case "manage inventory" and this is my current main success scenario:
The secretary chooses manage learning module from his/her page.
The system redirects secretary to the manage learning module page.
Secretary chooses what function to do in the page.
Where can i add that the secretary can add or update the data inside the database?
can i put it inside the alternate sequence as:
A3a.) secretary add new record.
A3b.) secretary updates existing records.
?
Thanks in advance
The use case you name is too unspecific. It should be something that can be easily considered "done" after something has been executed.
The person would not directly interact with a database. That is implementation details.
What you probably are looking for is a user goal, that you should add to your use case description.
Related
I have two questions related to Udi Dahan's article : Don’t Delete – Just Don’t
Sometimes we do need delete, the user (domain expert) request the delete functionality(the real meaning) for wrong data, Say the HR user has a form to add employees and he inserted wrong employee data, He wants to delete this data, It's not used in business yet and it's totally different from Retire or Fire an employee. How to handle the two cases in implementation?
How to make the UI more representative for this case ? using two buttons One shown only if we can DELETE employee and the other if we want to RETIRE employee ?
If the business wants this functionality and if they speak this words then it means they are part of the Ubiquitous language. In this case you may add the delete command. It is however recommended to make the intention clearer; you can name the command as deleteUserBecauseOfInvalidRegistration or so. In this case the delete command is part of the domain model; this means that you can easily restrict the deletion of the user depending on the other properties; for example, a user cannot be deleted anymore if it has approved by the HR manager or so. Then the UI can easily reflect this behavior by hiding the delete button if the operation is not permitted.
An alternative, when the business specialists have heard the word "delete" used by the IT guys so its not from the real domain, you may expose this functionality only in the Admin UI, as a low level command that deletes the rows from the database. The Admin UI could then be accessed only by some higher level persons, like the HR manager.
I have set up SpecFlow to execute a number of Selenium tests to test a website. This all works fine!
I am just considering if there might be room for some optimization on the structuring of the SpecFlow features.
All the scenarios in a specific feature should use the same login. This is something I have hardcoded in the StepDefinition using the [BeforeScenario()] hook at the moment, since I don't really wan't pollute the scenarios with login info. It isn't relevant for the test.
But at the same time, I would like to remove the hardcoded part, and move this into my feature.
My question is two part.
Can I specify login credentials in my feature description. Sort of like a Given:
Feature: As a user I want to be able to see my ongoing orders, and interact with them.
Given I am logged in with username abc and password xyz
Scenario: See list of ongoing order
Given I place an order
When I navigate to MyOrders page
Then I can see at least one order in the list
Is this good practice?
Does it make sense to do it like this, on the feature level I mean. The scenarios are not dependent on a specific order, and they would execute faster if I didn't need to log in for each scenario.
Thanks for your input.
For steps that are common to all scenarios in a feature you can use Backgrounds:
Feature: As a user I want to be able to see my ongoing orders, and interact with them.
Background:
Given I am logged in with username abc and password xyz
Scenario: See list of ongoing order
Given I place an order
When I navigate to MyOrders page
Then I can see at least one order in the list
Too much abuse of background steps can be a bad practice because it introduces coupling between your scenarios.
Another solution is to put the login part directly into your "I Place an order" step.
This will remove all the noise about login stuff since it's implicit that you need to log in to place an order.
I'd also suggest to call it "I've placed an order" instead of "I place an order".
Given steps are usually pre-condition that describes what happened prior using the functionnality (when steps)
When I first read your post, I thought of Dan North: Who's domain is it anyway? and that influences me to think that we should be trying to write our tests so that they stick to a single knowledge domain. As you talk about specific users and navigation and orders in a list, well its very like the example he gives in that your specification is crossing domains. This kind of leads me towards almost making your specification less specific, i.e. its not about navigating and checking a list, do you have an order or not!
Scenario: See list of ongoing order
Given I am logged in with username abc and password xyz
And I place an order
Then should have at least one order
I wanted to give you another example link, to a post I cant find, which talks about the benefits that a team has got by actually defining some example users and what value that gives their testing. So in your business domain you might have a user called Jack who will have placed a large order in the system, and another prospective client Jill with no orders. In this way tests such as
Given I am Jack
When I search for my orders
Then I will find 1
Given I am Jill
When I search for my orders
Then I will find 0
can guarantee that you are only testing your Search functionality, and less about getting the setup in place.
I'd also suggest that you have a look at Liz Keogh: Acceptance Criteria vs Scenarios who asserts that more general broad definitions are less valuable than very specific examples. (It is Specification By Example after all :-) )
So to answer your question, I think having the specified user is a good thing, but doing it how you are doing it is heading a very complicated route.
The scenario examples that are given are completely not in line with the Feature.
Feature: As a user I want to be able to see my ongoing orders, and interact with them.
Background:
Given I am logged in as John Doe
Scenario: This is taking to long
And I have placed an order more than 29 days ago
When I navigate to MyOrders page
Then I can see my order in the list
and I am able to cancel it
Scenario: Track package
And I have been notified my order has been send
When I navigate to MyOrders page
Then I can see my order in the list
and I am able to navigate to the postman's site and see its status
Scenario: Review item
And I have received my package
When I navigate to MyOrders page
Then I can see my order in the list
and I am able to review the item
Scenario: Contact Seller
And I have placed an order two weeks ago
When I navigate to MyOrders page
Then I can see my order in the list
and I am able to ask the seller what is going on
As you can see the When and the Then is starting to duplicate itself and you might want to consider tucking those away.
New to MVC and RoR and having a hard time grasping some of the concepts. One of them is batch updates to the database.
Lets say I have a set of data such as a list of students and their attributes like this
Student ID:1
Name: Alice
email:alice#alice.com
attribute: anything
attribute2: anything2
Student ID:2
Name: Kate
email:kate#kate.com
attribute: anything
attribute2: anything2
etc..
I've gotten the list from an API call.
I don't want them to be editable, nor do I want the attributes to be visible to the user.
Question is, how do I go about saving them into my database? It seems in the MVC way, each action requires a view? Will I be able to do it as a background process?
Thanks
Ryan
p/s- pointers to the right resources welcome too
So you'd just like to obtain records from an API and create models from them?
One option you may consider is writing rake tasks to get the data, and create the corresponding models (No rails answer is complete without a railscast link, so here's one It's old, but tells the basics)
Going this route, you could avoid making the data publicly editable, and just get it into the models/DB
You could use fixtures for this type of thing. Or, just use SQL to insert into your DB outside of Rails.
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Fixtures.html
I need to set up different permission on an object based on its workflow state. For instance, 'manager group' can edit the object only if state=draft but 'super manager group' can edit it also if state=validated.
It seems that's not possible using ir.model.access and I'm evaluating if it could be done using ir.rule. It seems not...
Is there a official way to get this or do I need to implement this feature (maybe by adding a condition into ir.model.access machinery).
This is not possible by default with ir.model.access, because this permission model is designed to act like simple Unix permission on CRUD operations, and it is statically defined, per-model and per-group.
You may be able to implement something like this using ir.rule, as it implements dynamic per-record access control based on field values. By having a set of rules defined only on the write and unlink operations and based on the state field, you will be able to prevent some groups from modifying records in certain states. By using the technique of an always-true rule [(1,'=',1)] you can then relax a non-global rule for users who have a "super-access" group. See also this answer.
This option will have important caveats however:
Be careful not to make those rules apply for read, as it will make the records completely disappear, and generally wreak havoc in your processes
The interface will not become read-only when the rule is in effect, and if you want to make the fields and buttons read-only you will have to find a way to specify this via attrs in a manner that depends on the user's groups. See also this Launchpad question.
the Save button in the UI will not be disabled
The standard error reporting in case of ir.rule restriction is not very clear, so it will certainly confuse users (note: it's being improved for 7.0)
As you see, using ir.rule filters for this purpose is far from a perfect solution, and you will first need to find appropriate solutions for the above issues.
Ultimately, you might have an easier task of implementing your own logic for this, plugging a new mechanism in the ORM primitive API methods: fields_view_get (for making fields dynamically read-only based on the user groups) and the CRUD methods (for actually restricting the operations)
There is another way instead of hacking web-client.
You can always have 2 views for the same Object .
For manager group.
For super manager group.
In manager group you can use attrs = {'readonly': [('state', '!=', 'draft')]}
or any condition as you needed.
And in the same way in super manager group, you can put his condition for fields.
I have this feature working on a production environment, using just Record Rules: in Project Issues, "basic users" can create and cancel issues, but can't open or close them.
Despite the GUI limitations mentioned by #odony, it works perfectly.
These are the Record Rules used::
There is a special case that needs attention: changing from a read-write State to a read-only State:
In the action's method, if the the State is changed after other write operations, the user will be able to change the State; but if there are some write operations after the State update, the user will not be able to change State.
In my example, the Project Issue method to Open an issue is case_open(). It first changes State and then does additional changes, like settting Open Date, User and Message history. Because of this, basic users can't Open issues. If you want them to be able to do so, case_open() must be overridden so that it changes State after all other write operations are done.
I got a similar requirement...
My requirement was to make a char field(say "test_123") readonly in the sale.order if the user comes under the group "sale user" otherwise editable for the group "Sale Manager".
That is, if the sale order is in draft state then anyone can edit, but it the sale order is confirmed then this field "test_123" is only editable for "Sale Manger"
What I did is I added a functional field (is_group_manager) which returns True if the user comes under the group "sale manager" and the state is not "draft" otherwise false.
Then in the xml view I added the field "test_123" with attribute attrs="{'readonly':[('is_group_manager','=',0)]}"
for example
<field name="is_group_manager" invisible="1"/>
<field name="test_123" attrs="{'readonly':[('is_group_manager','=',0)]}"/>
This will work only in openerp v6.0. Maybe this will be helpful for you. :)
I'm creating a website for travel deals on Shopify. The user would need to enter information such as name and age for every person on the order, as well as passport info. Is there a way I can ask the user to enter that info after their purchase, essentially updating their purchase info? This way a user won't have to have his/her passport number in order to purchase.
Cheers,
Dean
I would do this by linking to a form in the order confirmation email. You can edit this template on the 'Email & Notifications' preferences page in the admin.
The simplest option for the form itself would be to use Google Docs, but there are other services that provide a more professional look and feel. Wufoo is a good example.
You could create a tiny app to upload this info to the customer database using metafields. Depending on where and how you want this info collected David option is ok, though you should also consider placing this tiny app/form in the Thankyou page, using the Additional Content & Scripts form.