[rspec-users] How detailed should error scenarios be?

Matt Wynne matt at mattwynne.net
Fri Jul 24 03:52:01 EDT 2009


On 24 Jul 2009, at 05:59, Nathan Benes wrote:

> I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love  
> with
> both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
> testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.
>
> I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428
>
> Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be -  
> and
> the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
> detailed form
> fields etc to rspec specs.
>
> This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
> question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber  
> tests at
> all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
> it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
> encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.
>
> Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
> scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
> single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?
>
> I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that  
> attempts
> to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:
>
>  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
>    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
>    And I am on the New Account page
>    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid  
> data
>    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
> "<field_name1>"
>    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
> "<field_name2>"
>    And I press "Add Account"
>    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
>    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"
>
>
> I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and  
> look
> terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:
>
> Scenarios: missing required fields
>
> Scenarios: submitting bad data
>
> Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
> which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
> second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill  
> in
> the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
> with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can  
> see,
> it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
> doing more than it should be.
>
> I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
> good for error-path testing?

The question is difficult to answer as you'll eventually find your own  
balance with this from experience.

As Ben said, Cucumber scenarios are best applied for 'broad brush'  
scenarios that stakeholders care about. Although the stakeholders  
obviously care that this form renders error messages when invalid  
values are submitted, you may well start to bore them when you get  
into the level of detail of specifying each field and the error  
message that goes along with it. So in this instance, it might well be  
OK to have a cuke that tells you whether or not validation is being  
invoked at all, and then rely on specs to detail the way that  
validation is working.

Equally, your stakeholder / customer may be the type of person who  
will trust you better if they can see all the edge cases being  
explored in the cukes. So it depends a lot on the context you're  
working in. If so you can use some of the features of Cucumber like  
scenario outlines and step tables to make these kind of repetitive  
cukes more readable. I'd advise you do go and check out those features  
on the wiki.

Finding and testing for failure cases is something that most teams are  
pretty bad at - unless we have someone of that 'constructive  
destruction' mindset on the team, we often miss these scenarios the  
first time we build a feature. Steve McConnell's 'Code Complete'  
reckons on something like a 5:1 ratio of sad:happy path tests being  
produced by mature test teams, so you're on the right lines by  
thinking about them! What you might find is that writing high-level  
specs (i.e. cukes) for the more obvious failure cases will mean you  
are distracted from seeing other ones. What if someone tries to type  
some javascript or HTML into one of these boxes, for example?

cheers,
Matt

+447974 430184
matt at mattwynne.net
http://mattwynne.net



More information about the rspec-users mailing list