On 4/16/20 16:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 13:57 -0400, pmkellly(a)frontier.com wrote:
>> It's not about interpretation or not, it's just about a preference for
>> this:
>>
>> Test Steps
>> ----------
>>
>> 1. Step 1
>> 2. Step 2
>> 3. Step 3
>>
>> Expected Results
>> ----------------
>>
>> 1. Expected result 1
>> 2. Expected result 2
>> 3. Expected result 3
>>
>> versus this:
>>
>> Test Steps and Expected Results
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> 1. Step 1
>> 2. Expected result 1
>> 3. Step 2
>> 4. Expected result 2
>> 5. Step 3
>> 6. Expected result 3
>>
>> Our current template really only handles the first style, if you want
>> to do the second style you have to do some kind of 'hack' like kparal
>> did. I'm just saying if the second style is clearly better for some
>> test, we should probably add an alternative template or tweak the
>> existing template to have a 'mode' which works better for that style.
>>
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think the second format would serve us
> best.
>
> 1. Step 1
> 2. Expected result 1
> 3. Step 2
> 4. Expected result 2
>
> This makes the test case easier to read with lower chance of confusion.
I think there are cases where each works better, there's no harm in
supporting both.
That's true
Be Well and Safe
Pat (tablepc)