I am new to UML modelling and I was creating this use case and generalised the use cases into 4 main categories - Add info, View info, edit info and delete info. Each generalisation contains 6 use cases so in total it gives about 28 use cases and its difficult to fit them all in one system boundary whilst making it easy to understand. Can someone please advise please advise how I can overcome this?
Below is what i have so far. I have yet to add EditInformation and DeleteInformation but i've run out of space.
Many thanks
Use-cases are the description of the highest level behavior of the system. You shouldn't dwell into the lower level details. Normally, a system would have no more than several use-cases. According to your description, your actual use-cases are what you classified as categories: Add info, View info, Edit info and Delete info. Finer details such as ViewCar or AddBooking belong to the corresponding sequence/activity diagrams.
You can set for yourself a limit of how many artefacts you would put on a diagram at maximum. For example, you might say that all diagramms shall fit on a certain standard page format when printed. Typically, it is not the purpose of abstracting the use cases to a level where they all fit on one diagram but reveal no added value any more. You'd end up in a use case chart for a space rocket merely saying nothing but "launch spacecraft". Instead, try to identify such use cases on a highly abstract level and then you break them down into more detailed ones on subordinate diagrams. In most modeling tools you can create links between several diagrams. If you'd like to read more, I'd recommend Alistair Cockburn's standard book on use cases, ISBN 978-0201702255
Related
I noticed that in OpenAPI Path Items and some other constructs you have both summary and description fields, what is the difference between those, and what is the purpose of each? For me, they seem to accomplish the same thing, and I did not find anything about this in the documentation. It might seem like a non-sense question at first, but since you can use OpenApi to generate API's code, use it in documentation etc. etc. I think it makes sense to clear up the purpose of these.
summary is short, description is more detailed.
Think of the summary as a short one or two sentence explanation of what the intended purpose of the element is. You won't be able to describe all the subtle details, but at a high level, it should be able to explain the purpose of the element. Many documentation tools will only display the summary when there's a list of different components or endpoints, so this is a good place to put just enough information to let an unfamiliar reader know if this is the thing that will let them do what they want to do.
On the other hand, description is where the full details should go. For example, if you have special enum values, you can include a table of the behavior of each value. If you have an endpoint with special behavior not easily defined in OpenAPI, this is where you'd explain to the reader those details.
Many elements may be straightforward and not need a lot of details, so you may find your summary is sufficient. Different documentation tools may automatically use summary if description is not present (or vice versa), though you will want to verify that your particular tool does this. My personal preference is to default to description, and only use summary when the description is too verbose.
Is there a preferred way of creating BDD scenarios in small agile teams and amongst the community? I'm using courgette and it gives an example on https://courgette-testing.com/bdd
Scenario: Refunded items should be returned to stock
Given a customer previously bought a black sweater from me
And I have three black sweaters in stock.
When they return the black sweater for a refund
Then I should have four black sweaters in stock.
Does this sound like a good idea? Would this work well for communication in teams?
I've used their web steps bit, and am now doing the refactor bit to make it clear to the business.
Any links would help. Thanks
The conversations in BDD are more important than the tools. Rather than starting with the finely-grained specification in Courgette's example, try talking to the business first. Ask them for an example of the kind of behaviour they want.
When you write it down, start by just writing it the way they describe it. It's amazing how few people listen properly! After you've got the example from them, take a look at it. Can you see which bits are the contexts (Givens) and which are the outcomes (Thens)? Which is the step that's associated with triggering the behaviour you're interested in (Whens)?
Once you've worked that out, there are a couple more questions I like to ask:
Is there any other context which, for this same event, gives a different outcome?
Is there any other outcome that's important?
For instance, if I was implementing this behaviour for a big supermarket, I might come across an example like:
"Oh! No, don't add food back to stock. We don't know how it's been stored. We refund it if there's something wrong with it, but we bin it."
You can probably see how that might change your code!
Testers are really great at asking these questions and spotting missing scenarios! This leads us to the "Three Amigos" pattern. I like to include:
A business person, Product Owner, subject matter expert or person with the problem
A tester
A dev (or a pair of devs).
You can also include UI designers, technical writers, etc. - Matt Wynne says it's "Three Amigos where three is a number between 3 and 7".
I really like it when the developer writes the scenarios down, in any form that allows them to get to the "Given, When, Then". Sometimes I'll do it in the meeting; sometimes I do it later and show it or send it to my business person.
Courgette's example is something that typically happens when people don't have these conversations. If you start with the conversations, you're much more likely to get something that matches the above. Not only are those declarative steps easier for business to read and for the whole team to talk about, but they're also easier to maintain, as the detail of how they're achieved is hidden (usually in Step Definitions, and further in Page Objects).
There's all kinds of useful posts for BDD newcomers on my blog if you want to know more!
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
I wonder what sort of things you look for when you start working on an existing, but new to you, system? Let's say that the system is quite big (whatever it means to you).
Some of the things that were identified are:
Where is a particular subroutine or procedure invoked?
What are the arguments, results and predicates of a particular function?
How does the flow of control reach a particular location?
Where is a particular variable set, used or queried?
Where is a particular variable declared?
Where is a particular data object accessed, i.e. created, read, updated or deleted?
What are the inputs and outputs of a particular module?
But if you look for something more specific or any of the above questions is particularly important to you please share it with us :)
I'm particularly interested in something that could be extracted in dynamic analysis/execution.
I like to use a "use case" approach:
First, I ask myself "what's this software's purpose?": I try to identify how users are going to interact with the application;
Once I have some "use case", I try to understand what are the objects that are more involved and how they interact with other objects.
Once I did this, I draw a UML-type diagram that describe what I've just learned for further reference. What happens after depends on the task I've been assigned, i.e. modify the code, document the code etc.
There is the question of what motivation do I have for learning the new system:
Bug fix/minor enhancement - In this case, I may focus solely on that portion of the system that performs a specific function that needs to be altered. This is a way to break down a huge system but also is a way to identify if the issue is something I can fix or if it is something that I have to hand to the off-the-shelf company whose software we are using,e.g. a CRM, CMS, or ERP system can be a customized off-the-shelf system so there are many pieces to it.
Project work - This would be the other case and is where I'd probably try to build myself a view from 30,000 feet or so to know what are the high-level components and which areas of the system does the project impact. An example of this is where I'd join a company and work off of an existing code base but I don't have the luxury of having the small focus like in the previous case. Part of that view is to look for any patterns in the code in terms of naming conventions, project structure, etc. as this may be useful once I start changing some code in the system. I'd probably do some tracing through the system and try to see where are the uglier parts of the code. By uglier I mean those parts that are kludge-like and may have some spaghetti code as this was rushed when first written and is now being reworked heavily.
To my mind another way to view this is the question of whether I'm going to be spending days or weeks wrapping my head around a system like in the second case or should this be a case where it hopefully takes only a few hours, optimistically that is, to get my footing to make the necessary changes.
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/).