Skip to main content

Do we do BDD on Defects?

Comments

4 comments

  • Andreas Willich

    For me, defects or bugs are missed examples from a previous discovery session.

    So from that, a discovery for the concrete defects should not be necessary, but if you thinks that there are more hidden issues, then make a new discovery session for it.

    For Formulation, you should probably have all the necessary steps already. But perhaps not, then you need to do again some short formulation meeting.

    But this all depends on details on how you work. But perhaps it is something to start thinking about how to do it for you.

    0
  • sandeep hegde

    Thanks Andreas Willich, how about exploratory testing defects? If a defect is found during exploratory testing in a sprint, should we write Gherkin Scenario (formulation) for such defects? Should we write Gherkin Scenario for every corner case?

    0
  • sandeep hegde

    Hi Andreas Willich, when you have a moment, can you please answer the question above? Thank you.

    0
  • Andreas Willich

    A defect found during exploratory testing is again for me an example that wasn't found during Discovery.

    If you write a scenario for it and automate it, is a different question.

    Personally, I am always thinking about the risk of an example. How risky is it if this fails for my project/product?

    With automating everything you run in other problems (maintenance, flackyness).

    When I remember correctly Gáspár Nagy is covering this also in our SpecFlow Masterclass. You can watch it in our SpecFlow School at https://specflow.org/school/bdd-masterclass/

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk