So I'm planning out a project to make a simple text adventure game (think of an old Goosebumps choose your own adventure book) and I've got started with some basic signup/login features and character creation.
Before advancing any further I've been working on my ERD and trying to simplify it.
The main loop of the game will be within the Story/Storyline/Option associations.
Story being the container for all of the storylines. I am planning 3 different stories based around your character's background.
StoryLine being the dialogue presented at each new step of the story.
Option being the User choice's that navigate you to different storylines (with certain options being able to hop into different a Story entirely)
Each Story will have 2 possible EndStates, a good and a bad.
So an EndState will belong to Story, but the final option picked along the Storyline will be what leads you to the EndState.
So EndState should also belong to Option I believe.
So my main question here is, would Option HAS_ONE endstate, or would it HAS_MANY?
And if that's the case, then should Story just has_one end_state, through option?
Sorry if this is a little contrived, wanted to give some context. Any other tips or opinions for my current layout would be greatly appreciated!
Related
I've been learning Ruby on Rails for quite some time now and have built several toy applications. I've taken many classes/courses (i.e., Hartl, Code School, Udemy, etc.). Now I'm working on a pet project that is fairly complex - many models and relationships.
Here's my question: How do I go about thinking about a complex application in terms of models and relationships? It seems to me there should be some visual way to model all of this, but I haven't seen any discussion of such modeling in any of the classes I've taken. Sure, there's the very simple diagrams in the Rails Guides, but how do I extend this to something more complex? Or, am I making this too complicated? Do I just start coding models and relationships and see where it takes me? It seems this ad hoc approach could easily paint me into a corner where I'll have to start over from scratch if I paint myself into a corner, so to speak.
Are there tools or blog posts that can help me?
(Note: I've also posted this question at Reddit.Com/r/Rails at https://www.reddit.com/r/rails/comments/7c9zbf/how_to_think_about_rails_web_application/)
It sounds like what you're after is a schema designer. I'll link one at the bottom of this post. A schema designer will allow you to visualize all the relationships in your application, and see how one model connects to another. They're really helpful in writing complex DB queries. I've attached an example of a fairly simple design just to give you an idea what they do.You can also add all the columns a model has in the design, I just usually use it more for relationships.
http://ondras.zarovi.cz/sql/demo/
Purely based on my experience/opinion...
You'll end up changing your database design a couple of times as you build your app.
I would start with a whiteboard, then consider using a schema designer as #aram mentioned.
After you see the big picture, just start with the relationships that what you need for today's features. You can keep referring to the original design, so you can see the bigger picture, but you don't want to overbloat your architecture before you need to because it will change.
After you write some code and build those relationships, you can spot check yourself using the rails-erd gem to programmatically generate your app's schema.
I've just started using SpecFlow. It's a tool for creating business understandable test scenarios in a BDD manner. Basically it transforms user stories to unit tests.
I'm a beginner to user stories and I wonder about its length. Is this a good practice to create very precise user stories? Here's an example:
In order to get help
As a StackOverflow user
I want to add post
with name and content
and add tags to it
and format the content
and the information about my post edits to be stored in the system
and some more things like that
Should I keep my stories compact? If so - how can I manage detailed requirements? Or maybe it's nothing wrong in very long and precise I want section in a user story?
If you could develop an entire system in a couple of weeks, and do that reliably, nobody would ever worry about "user stories". They'd just get you to develop the system, sit with you, and tweak it as it went.
User stories only exist in order to get feedback from people who can't be with you all the time, and to help you learn what it is that your users (and other stakeholders) really want.
Here's how I treat a list like this:
In order to get help
As a StackOverflow user
I want to add post
with name and content
and add tags to it
and format the content
and the information about my post edits to be stored in the system
You want to get help. Which of these actually add to your ability to get help? Is it you wanting help, or do you want to offer help to other people? Do you want recognition for the help you're offering other people? The top part of this seems false (and it's why it's really difficult to have these conversations with fake requirements).
I think there are multiple requirements here, and far beyond the scope of just one user story. With an analyst hat on, here's how I might break this down:
In order to award great content with appropriate recognition,
as Stack Exchange,
we want people's usernames to appear with their content.
Of course, the users want this too, but they're not paying for it (except through adverts). So work out who's paying for this, and why.
In order to get more page impressions and keep people on the site for longer,
as Stack Exchange,
we want users to be able to find similar content really easily.
Hm. This one's a bit trickier. See, the user doesn't really want to spend their entire life on StackOverflow. It's just that if we give them the appropriate recognition, and make it easier for others to find their content, they might do that. Not all "user stories" actually benefit users. Find out who's paying for them, and why; then you find your real stakeholder. It's also OK for a story to benefit more than one stakeholder, and it's easy to see how to rephrase this from the user's point of view as well.
format the content
Honestly not sure about this one. It might be about being able to emphasise important points, etc. There are a ton of aesthetic ideals that don't lend themselves well to BDD and automated scenarios. Sometimes the only way to do this is to try, and get feedback.
In order to avoid retyping my request every time
As the user
I want the information about my post edits to be stored in the system
Well, yes, that would be nice.
The thing is that each of these can be developed independently. If you can think of any feature, any item that you could get rid of and still have the release be valuable, put it in a separate story.
If you can replace "I want to..." with "I want to be able to..." it's likely that what you have there isn't a story, but an entire capability. Most people do this instinctively. Lots of people call those "epics".
I've just shown you how I break them down. It's a pretty simple process.
First, look at your requirements. If there's anything for which you can say, "I want to be able to..." or "Someone wants to be able to..." then you know that's a completely different capability, which means it's going to be a separate story.
You can then separate those into contexts. So you might have stories like:
In order to free up our junior traders
We want them to be able to generate contracts automatically
So that they can help with the trade analysis instead of typing.
If that seems too big for the feedback cycle (typically a two-week sprint), you can divide it further.
In order to free up our junior traders
We want them to be able to generate *orange juice* contracts automatically
So that they can help with the trade analysis instead of typing.
Here, we're focusing on being able to trade orange juice, but we could equally narrow the story down to the FTSE, or the US, or the NY stock exchange. This is how we focus the efforts on the thing that will deliver: protecting revenue, lowering costs or generating value.
To turn these into scenarios, I ask, "Can you give me an example of an OJ trade on the NY stock exchange?" If I see anything generic that I don't understand, I ask, "Can you give me an example of that?"
That example becomes my first scenario. The context (given) is defined by the limits of the story. The event (when) is the performance of the capability. The outcome (then) is the resulting value.
In answer to your question - yes, I think it's important to create precise user stories. That means knowing why it's valuable, defining the context that you're going to cover, and suggesting an example of what the outcome might be.
The example you gave is more than just one story, though. It's not precise enough. Hopefully the advice here will help you to narrow stories down to something useful. One or two days is a good length for a story, but if you're starting down this path and find they're a bit longer, that's OK.
Your changes are also stories.
I always advise the following:
Try cutting your stories in scenarios. The more scenarios, the better you can pinpoint when something is going wrong. Give all scenarios subjective names.
Now for example, your test. If step 1 goes wrong, all your other steps are not going to get tested.
Also use the Given, When and Then tags to read your scenarios easily.
So instead, you could say:
Feature: As a StackOverflow user I want to add a post
Scenario: I go to stackoverflow website
Given I open the browser
And I go to the stackoverflow website
When I click New Post
Then a new page appears to insert my data
Scenario: I fill in data for my post - Name and content
Given I do not modify this page
When I fill in name
And I fill in content
Then I add tags to it
And I format the content
Scenario: Check if information about post edits are stored in the system
Given...
Guess you will get where this is going :-)
There is no right detail level of user stories, as user stories shrink in size (scope) and grow in detail (specifications) over time. This slide shows a nice visualization from Gojko Adzic about this: http://www.slideshare.net/chassa/2015-0214agile-reqend2endcomplete/6
For the question on how precise and detailed a Gherkin scenario should be: Scenario should reveal interesting aspects of the user story to be implemented. They should use concrete (key) examples rather than abstract descriptions. The examples should focus on the aspect that should be illustrated. The scenario title should be an abstract description of the rule or aspect that is illustrated with the example(s) provided in the scenario.
You usually start with a main aspect (happy path) scenario, and then try to “break the model” by coming up with new examples (cases) that explore other aspects of the story. You start by asking the questions “How would you try out the story when it was implemented?” (happy path) and “What should happen if …?” to collect potential scenarios to consider (probably defining some of the questions to be out of scope for this story).
After that, you’re trying to answer these questions (scenario title) and illustrate them with concrete examples (scenario steps). This slide gives an idea of “break the model”: http://www.slideshare.net/chassa/2015-0214agile-reqend2endcomplete/61
First of all, i am not sure if such games come under "Text based games". Previously when i asked same question, i remained with doubts that probably, my question was misunderstood. Might be because of the wrong terminology i am using. So added up a video for a dummy game aimed to be built.
The game is about, competing in the "TV world" by creating more and more successful programs. It also involves planning them, hiring tv actors, managing funds etc. ( Something similar on the lines of Hollywood Mogul)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8C3kJ4CraQ
I tried to code the above game using MVC. However, as and as i coded, i ended up myself with a huge number of "view" classes, which was very hard to manage especially because in this particular scenario, every step take in the view, is dependent upon the another view. That is to say, there is a lot and lot of validation on each and every step.
For example, if i click on some tab, coming on the later stages of the game, it validates the data (model) collected by other prior views. This makes it very hard to code. As already the validations jumble up together, in addition to the long route followed by MVC to validate views.
Any ideas, experience shared would be appreciated. Thanks :)
The views should depend on the model, not on other views. For instance, the warning "Please specify the roles first" should occur because the model lacks the roles, not because the roles view has not been validated.
Therefore yours views should be hierarchical. You will have a main view including the top menu, for each item another view including the secondary menu and a view per form. Each form view will fill a part of the model directly. The forms views should not include the menus. There, the conditionnal validations for the top menu would only be put in your top view and so forth.
I hope this all makes sense and helps you.
I'm just starting with BDD and I'm trying to build a small app, so I can see it working in a real environment, but I'm having trouble deciding what should be a feature. I'm building a tiny shop.
I decided that "Compare products" will be a feature and "User can checkout as guest" will be one, but to get to that, I first need to list products.
My question is, should "There should be a list of products" be a feature?
Thanks!
It should probably be a feature, but try wording it from a user's point of view. What does this list of product offer him?
User should be able to get an overview of offered products
User should be able to order and reorder products on name, price, availability.
It's pretty hard to begin doing BDD. The only thing that helps feeling confident in your abilities and the whole approach is to write test scenarios and the code that executes them. I would suggest you not to make already complex and confusing situation harder. Pick whatever task that you need to implement, open a blank text file and try to explain using simple sentences the behavior. Every sentence should start with one of three keywords: given, when and then. Using your favorite BDD framework write the code that will parse these sentences and stimulate the application to get into the start state (given), execute some commands (when) and assert the transitioned state (then). Application code may start from mere mocks. Replace gradually those mocks with gradually built code and grow your application with higher confidence and quality levels.
User story is a feature. Something that can be expressed in format:
As role
I would like to do something
So that goal
E.g.
As user
I would like to be able to compare products
So that I can select a product satisfying my needs in a best way
As guest
I would like to checkout my shopping cart
So that I can complete the purchase
Each feature have to be confirmed by a series of Given-When-Then scenarios of course.
You're basically asking what is a feature. Think about it, you have a story, a story describes a feature you (or other people involved) want for your app. Usually it has the form of: As a user I want to view list of products. You may add notes to this story, in order to make it more clear. But then comes the specific behaviour (that eventually you will test against) - there are infinite number of behaviours that conform to this story (think about view of products and the many ways to present them). Your focus, in BDD, is on finding the behaviour that suite your app needs (I use app and not user, because sometimes you should decide for the user) - by talking to as many people as you can, by trying stuff out and iterating it over.
It's like going from top to bottom - always trying to focus on behaviour - being more specific as you go. If you think about it, given a behaviour (meaning a set of tests) there is an infinite number of implementations. That's why the focus of BDD is to truly understand the behaviour by experimenting and talking - there is always a degree of freedom.
More important would be to figure out what the user wants to do with the list of products?
the feature would be providing something valuable to the user.
so in your case it would be
Choose a product to view from a list of products
Choose x products to compare from a list of products
Others
I would classify a feature as a minimum useful set of stories that deliver some coherent (business) value.
for BDD framework see http://kernowcode.wordpress.com
To determine, if a requirement is an explicit feature / user story, you could use the guidelines of task based design / documentation (e.g. http://www.sprez.com/articles/task-documentation-design.html). Such concepts acknowledge that a user of a system wants to achieve a specific result. Usually, to know something (such as: which products are available) is only a step in the process of purchasing / selling / building / etc.
A good starting point in BDD is to write the topics you would use as chapters in your user manual. These topics are usually the features you are going to provide in your software solution.
A nice framework that supports such an approach of specification-by-example is Concordion (http://concordion.org). Please have a look at the description of “acceptance tests in plain English” (http://gojko.net/2009/09/01/acceptance-testing-in-plain-english-with-concordion-net/).
I work at an in-house IT department for company running 10 or so only shops of varying complexity. The shops code has been written over the last 8 years, each shop a new branch growing father and father away from the stem (I guess that makes it a bush?)
The need for more and more complex discounts, campaigns and user monitoring are growing rapidly - and changing rapidly as well (you never know what they come up with). So we have decided to write a new system from scratch and bring the different shops back together having them run on the same core code. We have considered .NET, but due to the fact that the design requirements change so fast we have more or less decided to give Rails a try. But we have some uncertainties/questions about rails.
Is Rails (stack) suitable to run to build a shop framework and who should this be organized?
We are running around 10 shops of which some are very much alike only differing in style, where others stands out in functionality, flow and content. But behind the business logic is all the same. The shops functionality is to a great extend the same as well. As an example the checkout page of one shop might display great details about VAT, discounts, P&P, etc. where as another might only show the necessary minimum.
Which approach would you take? Would you build and maintain a runable template shop with a functional superset of the shops. As new functionality is developed then merge the code with the other shops? Sounds a bit cumbersome.
In the example with the checkout page the views would differ from shop to shop, but the controllers and the models would remain the same, as long as you externalize configurations, like payment method types, and so on.
From this perspective it would make more sense just to create a repository of the views and configurations for each shop and then maintain model and controller code in a separate repository.
Would be possible to arrange the views according to shop, keeping all resources in one repositoary /views/shopname/Product. Would this make sense?
What do you think? how would you do this? Will working with rails in this way bring to much trouble?
Our campaign/discount system is growing steadily complex, both GUI and business logic. (in this view Rails seems interesting with its fast turnaround). Our discounts are property based and these properties are stored in a database row.
Making changes in the requirements to the workings of a discount is a real headache. So we are slowly replacing this property based system with a system that for each discount attaches a class (PHP) and a configuration so that each discount type has its own class and each utilization of such discount could specify some values for this class to operate on given current context (basically: what is in the basket)
In rails what approach would you take?
In rails you can easily extend your model (discount) with yet another property, migrate and you are ready (maybe a bit simplified). Could you write a base discount class that relied on a few basic properties and then write modules that hook into (extends) this class in case you need more advanced functionality?
Specifically what would this be in Rails terms a helper?
Some of this post might be a bit unclear. Please do ask questions. Also I'm in the process of learning Rails so please excuse me if don't use the right terms or if I've missed some of the main ideas of Rails.
Thanks
Michael
Is Rails (stack) suitable to run to
build a shop framework and how should
this be organized?
Sure, it can be suitable see:
http://www.shopify.com/
http://www.liquidmarkup.org/
I would not recommend it as a first project though.
Dont forget Spree Commerce as a viable solution that may or not suid your needs. On the other hand, if you want to roll your own solution, also check ActiveMerchant for payment gateway integration.