Mar 12 2010

FIT vs SLIM

Published by gojko under articles

I got this question from a blog reader recently:

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?

Continue Reading »

6 responses so far

Mar 01 2010

Are tools necessary for acceptance testing, or are they just evil?

Published by gojko under articles

While doing research for my new book, I was very surprised to find out that Jim Shore gave up on acceptance testing. I use his “describe-demonstrate-develop” process description all the time in my workshops, so I guess I better stop doing that. Jim Shore wrote:

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 »

6 responses so far

Aug 25 2008

Concordion: Agile Acceptance Testing with free-form text

Published by gojko under articles

I finally had some time to take a look at Concordion, an acceptance testing tool that I’ve heard about on several conferences. Concordion is an interesting alternative to FIT. It is developed by David Peterson and released under the Apache opensource license. Similar to FIT, Concordion uses HTML documents as an executable specification and requires some glue code (fixtures) to connect the executable elements of that specification to the domain code. Unlike FIT, Concordion does not require the specification to be in any particular format — you can write examples as normal sentences, without any restrictions. Continue Reading »

5 responses so far

Aug 12 2008

FIT without fixtures

Published by gojko under articles, fitnesse

During the Agile 2008 conference, Mike Stockdale organised a mini-session where he and Rick Mugridge presented some new features and ideas that they are working on at the moment. The session led to a very interesting discussion on whether we could produce a variant of domain adapter/domain fixtures that allows FIT to connect directly to most domain services and objects without the need for any fixtures. Continue Reading »

9 responses so far

Aug 11 2008

The Fixture Gallery in Portugese

Published by gojko under news

Ivan Sanchez translated the FIT/FitNesse Fixture Gallery to Portugese. Translation of release 2.1 (2008-08-11) is now online:

No responses yet

Next »