SOrry if this is a dumb quesiton, but coming to this new... how does this help testing/automation, if you still need to create the actual programming/script? I mean isn't this useless other than a sort of "note" or "logic brainstorm"? How does it actually get to that functional stage and at what point is the avg user lost to complexity and the dev/programmer steps in? Thanks in advance!
Hello! Thank you so much for your video! So, I understood that using a lot of "and" is not a good idea, it's terrible like you told. In this case, can I to reduce steps and abreviate my scenario?
Hi. Generally, the goal is to keep your feature organised. Personally, I feel if it raises above 10 scenario's (And I consider a Scenario outline with multiple examples and 1 scenario), then it might be a good moment to review the feature and see if you can split it up in multiple ones. For example, splitting up an Account feature into Authentication and Registration.
Hi Jesse, thanks for your message. Negative tests are definately possible. Maybe this post helps you out a bit? www.spritecloud.com/2015/01/complex-workflows-with-cucumber/
Thanks for sharing this informations. Can you recommend to write all product requirements in a gherkins style or would you just focus on test scenarios when using gherkins? When it comes to the system requirements which are only describing the black box interfaces of a system, than it becomes all the time difficult to me, how i should define the interfaces between modules inside a system. I only see the possability to do it by creating an architectural design. But if the system becomes more and more complexety with a fixed system interface than i dont understand how to provide the developer with all relevant informations without extending the gherkins scenarion. Hope you have some impressions. Kind regards René
Hi, I hope I understand you correctly here. In the end, the goal of writing a scenario is that it covers a unique part of functionality of the system. If there are no key differences between the 200 products, then using 1 product is fine. But, for example, if one of the products have an exception in the checkout, to pick a color or a different delivery method, then it is relevant to create a separate scenario for it. I hope that answers your question!
Thanks for the video. Just one question, What if I want to test all available payment options from the application . Do I really repeated my scenarios with different options or is there is any way to write it.
Hi Supriya, Thanks for your comment. In the video I chose to use When the user submits valid payment information, but this can also be more variable. Then with a Scenario Outline, you make sure you don't need to repeat yourself: Scenario Outline: Submit payment options Given the user is on the payment page with product "" When the user submits a valid "" payment Then the successfully place order message should display Examples: | product | payment-type | | Chair | Ideal | | Table | Credit card | | Spoon | PayPal |
Can a scenario be called upon multiple times without writing the same scenario multiple times? Suppose: Scenario1: Fill form. If we desire to fill a form multiple times back to back, is there any option to refer to scenario1, OR do we have to write the same scenario each time we need to fill a form?
Hi, Thanks for the question. If, for the specific test, it's important that something is filled in multiple times, it can be written as follows: Given the user is logged in re-submitting the the form "5" times When the user submits the form again Then it should not be allowed to submit the form Actually referring to scenario 1 is something for the test automation developer to solve. It could be by directly referring to the existing step "5.times { step "submit the form"}" , but the recommended way would be making a helper function: def submit_form; end # Submits the form with data def ensure_form_submitted_times(number_of_submits = 5) ensure_logged_in # Makes sure to log in the user, if not logged in already go_to_submit_form # Navigates to the form number_of_submits.times{ submit_form } end But again, this is a technical solution. The focus of this video is writing Gherkin steps in a logical, readable and dynamic manner, without worrying about the TA-developer to solve it.
The best video about the topic so far, but.... to have a full image here's something missing and that bugs me. Would be great if you presented how to describe those cases when you having multiple options which leads to "branch", like "invalid bank details and warning message" to be able to visualize the correct way. That is kind of unclear how branches of scenarios could look like. Like mine main feature has 4 scenarios for example. but one of them "if was terminated" have 2 own cases. How to play around that...
I need to do a gherkin for a chat... which contains different variations and I would like to know if I need a scenario (given when then) for each question and answer ? for example Given the user is on the name question When the user send the name Then the chat should display the "lastname" question is that OK?
Hi Juan, I you notice a pattern in a scenario, like 1 variable in the when and 1 in the then, I would recommend a scenario outline. For forms like you're describing, it becomes a bit more advanced Gherkin, we like to do something like follows: Scenario Outline: auth10 - Registering with invalid credentials Given a new user is not registered yet When the user submits their registration with the following data: | email | password | password_confirm | | | | | Then an error with text "" should display Examples: | email | password | password_confirm | error | | invalid.com | 123456789 | 123456789 | Invalid email address | | email.,%$&*@spritecloud.com | 123456789 | 123456789 | Invalid email address | | _255RAND_CHARS_@spritecloud.com | 123456789 | 123456789 | is too long (maximum is 254 characters) | | invalid-test@spritecloud.com | 1234 | 1234 | Is too short (minimum is 8 characters) | | invalid-test@spritecloud.com | 123456789 | 987654321 | Doesn't match password | Then for successful cases, we have a separate scenario. Maybe handly for codeblocks, but it needs a login codeshare.io/OdNboN Might be other tools to share these kind of code blocks, just did a quick search
The Given step is handling the independence of the scenario. That step always says: Before I start, I need to be here as that person with those parameters. The eventual independence is handled in the step definitions, this will need a follow-up video.
The Given step is handling the independence of the scenario. That step always says: Before I start, I need to be here as that person with those parameters. The eventual independence is handled in the step definitions, this will need a follow-up video from our end. Stay tuned!
Navigation tests don't have any depth in them if that makes any sense. So in Gherkin single Scenario Outline to test it: Scenario Outline: Navigation tests Given the user is on the homepage When the user clicks on the "" in the top navigation Then the "target-page" page should display successfully Outlines: |navigation-item|target-page| |home | Home | | contact | Contact | However, for these kinds of test, I'd recommend using a specialized tool for it, like Fink link checker: github.com/dantleech/fink You can export the results to www.calliope.pro if you want a nice overview instead of xml results.
This is something that should be parameterized. So the step would become: `And I should see the looks-like-you-have text present on the page` And a configuration file would translate that parameter to the actual text you’re looking for. That way you can manage all your content text in a single translation file. I really like doing this in .yml format, but .JSON or .XML or even .csv should work just as good.
The Plan will stop if any of the steps in between fail. So you will not know the results of that happen afterwards. The Backtrack tests 1 thing per scenario, so there is no cascading effect on a failure. Besides that, the Backtracked scenarios are modular. Meaning that if anything changes, you only need to update one scenario for it.
Aren't all of those intermediate scenario unnecessary? You could just skip right to the last one. Or instead of creating so many 'Given' steps that will repeat a lot of the same code, you could have steps that build on each other (but do not repeat the same processes) ' like "Given the user is on the product 'Chair'" and "Given the user adds the 'Chair' to the shopping basket" and "Given the user continues to the payment page"
