B2G/QA/Automation/UI/Strategy/Integration vs End to end: Difference between revisions

B2G/QA/Automation/UI/Strategy/Integration vs End to end (view source)

9 bytes added , 13 February 2015

canmove, Confirmed users

2,041

edits

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 While this seemingly violates "single point of truth," the different contexts in which the tests are specified, scoped and maintained actually makes these two different tests, much like two separate applications would never refer to each others' source unless it can be pushed into an independent library.
-Via skillful reuse of View and other code modules between suites, each test suite can be treated as an independent target without increasing maintenance unacceptably. Ideally, only abstract fixture setup and flow is expressed in the test method, with all other maintainable aspects in shared modules. So long as both groups agree to maintain interfaces and promised behavior of shared module code, they can both work freely at any level of communication.
+Via skillful reuse of View and other code modules between suites, each test suite can be treated as an independent target without increasing maintenance unacceptably. Ideally, only abstract fixture setup and test flow is expressed in the test function, with all other maintainable aspects in reusable modules. So long as both groups agree to maintain interfaces and promised behavior of shared module code, they can both work freely at any level of communication.
 Of course, each group should have an opinion on coverage for either suite, and can (and should) help expand each suite, but single point of ownership allows decisions to be made quickly as appropriate for each set of primary stakeholders.