[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-2706) New "Scenario Test" asset list option (UX)

[Stetson Robinson (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-2706?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13602481#comment-13602481 ] 

Stetson Robinson edited comment on DROOLS-2706 at 7/9/18 11:25 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[~ibek], what other assets besides rules will the scenario test then? Process simulations are separate from test scenarios, and I thought this was to replace test scenarios only.

Regarding the name, I think the word "Test" needs to be there because users know what a "test" is intuitively, but "simulation" takes some thought and interpretation. A "simulation" and a "test" mean close to the same thing in this context, so we should opt for the clearer term, which imo is "test". And we should not say "simulation test" or "test simulator", which are redundant. As I understand it, this feature is a way to test that a scenario of conditions yields the expected results based on the rules user's have created. So because of that, *Rule Scenario Test* or just *Scenario Test*  or frankly the existing name *Test Scenario* makes the most sense to me.

Is there any reason why we don't just leave this feature called *Test Scenario* as it is? Why do we need to change the name and why does everyone keep suggesting "simulation" as part of it? We already have "Process Simulation" in the process designer as a separate feature, which I don't think this new feature will replace from what I understand. I assume I must be overlooking some aspect of this feature.


was (Author: stetson.robinson):
[~ibek], what other assets besides rules will the scenario test then?

Regarding the name, I think the word "Test" needs to be there because users know what a "test" is intuitively, but "simulation" takes some thought and interpretation. A "simulation" and a "test" mean close to the same thing in this context, so we should opt for the clearer term, which imo is "test". And we should not say "simulation test" or "test simulator", which are redundant. As I understand it, this feature is a way to test that a scenario of conditions yields the expected results based on the rules user's have created. So because of that, *Rule Scenario Test* or just *Scenario Test*  or frankly the existing name *Test Scenario* makes the most sense to me.

Is there any reason why we don't just leave this feature called *Test Scenario* as it is? Why do we need to change the name and why does everyone keep suggesting "simulation" as part of it? I assume I must be overlooking some aspect of this feature.

> New "Scenario Test" asset list option (UX)
> ------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DROOLS-2706
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-2706
>             Project: Drools
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Scenario Simulation and Testing
>            Reporter: Liz Clayton
>            Assignee: Liz Clayton
>              Labels: UX, UXTeam
>
> As a practitioner - I want to be able to distinguish the new Scenario Test tool option, from the existing one, within the Asset list so that I can quickly/easily create a test using the new editor.
> *Verification conditions:*
> The new Scenario Test tool is distinguishable from the existing test tool within the asset list, through visual inspection by the user (no hover/click required.)
> Notes:
> Need a way to identify "experimental" tools from existing (to be deprecated?) tools. Solution might include distinct names for each, or parenthetical append (e.g. "experimental, beta, preview...) Or visual indicator, such as an icon, flag, etc.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)