I just wanted your opinion on SLIM as opposed to standard FIT/Fitnesse. Are there things that can only be done via the FIT/Fitnesse route that cannot be done via SLIM? So for acceptance tests and integration tests can I just use SLIM?
We want to exploit the BDD abilities of Scenario tables in SLIM. Ideally I would like to use SLIM to undertake all kinds of tests. I assume it has all the same capabilities? Are there any issues?
Here’s a video from a joint workshop that David Evans, Mike Scott and I organised yesterday at Skills Matter. We talked about strategies to get the most out of acceptance tests (especially with FitNesse) and organised a group workshop to review some good and bad examples of acceptance tests – taken from my Hands On Acceptance Testing workshop.
My experience with Fit and other agile acceptance testing tools is that they cost more than they’re worth. There’s a lot of value in getting concrete examples from real customers and business experts; not so much value in using “natural language” tools like Fit and similar.
The two failure patterns that Shore describes in his post are falling back on testers to write everything and merging acceptance and integration tests. I’ve experienced both of these myself, and it seems that they are common in general. We discussed both during the top 10 ways to fail with acceptance testing openspace session at CITCON Europe last year. However, there are good ways to solve both problems. Continue Reading »
On March 2nd, Dave Evans and I are running a FitNesse clinic in central London starting at 6:30 PM. This is a unique opportunity to get your FitNesse tests reviewed for free and get help with writing and maintaining FitNesse tests and suites.
Dave and I will discuss some of the common pitfalls faced by teams in getting to grips with Fitnesse. We will show examples of good and bad acceptance tests, illustrating how different styles of fixtures lend themselves to different types of tests. We also highlight some of the features of Fitnesse that allow you to keep your tests expressive, useful and easy to maintain.
Make this interactive and bring your own test examples to be discussed, critiqued and improved upon in a group workshop.
Effective prioritisation is key to delivering value with a software project. The MoSCoW model, splitting features into Must have, Should have, Could have and Would like (really Won’t have), theoretically does the trick. However, I found it very hard to apply in practice – too many things end up in the Must category. I recently came across an alternative model that seems to solve that problem. Continue Reading »
Effective prioritisation is key to delivering value with a software project. 
