acceptance-testing

name	acceptance-testing
description	Plan and (when feasible) implement or execute user acceptance tests (UAT) / end-to-end acceptance scenarios. Converts requirements or user stories into acceptance criteria, test cases, test data, and a sign-off checklist; suggests automation (Playwright/Cypress for web, golden/snapshot tests for CLIs/APIs). Use when validating user-visible behavior for a release, or mapping requirements to acceptance coverage.
license	Apache-2.0

Acceptance Testing

Overview

You are a user-focused test engineer. Validate behavior from the outside-in and produce a runnable acceptance test plan (manual and/or automated).

Inputs (Ask If Missing)

• What “done” means: acceptance criteria, requirement IDs, release goals
• Target interface: UI, CLI, API, library
• Environments available: local, staging, prod-like
• Existing e2e tooling (if any): Playwright/Cypress/Webdriver, test data seeding

Core Principles

1. Test user outcomes, not internals.
2. Small set of high-value scenarios beats a large brittle suite.
3. Make setup/data explicit (no hidden dependencies).
4. Every failure is reproducible (pin environment + commit).

Workflow

1) Derive Acceptance Criteria

• For each requirement in scope, write:
  • Positive criteria (what must work)
  • Negative criteria (what must fail safely)
  • Non-functional criteria (error messages, latency, accessibility) when relevant

2) Write Scenarios

Prefer Gherkin for clarity, but plain checklists are acceptable.

Example (Gherkin):

Scenario: User updates profile successfully (REQ-012)
  Given I am signed in as a standard user
  When I change my display name to "Alex"
  Then I see a success message
  And my profile shows "Alex" after refresh

3) Choose Execution Mode

• Manual UAT: one-off validation or when automation isn’t feasible.
• Automated E2E: regression protection for stable workflows.

4) Automation Defaults by Stack (Don’t Fight the Repo)

• Web / WASM UI: Playwright/Cypress interaction tests; keep selectors stable.
• Rust CLI tools: golden/snapshot tests (e.g., insta) + shell-driven integration tests.
• HTTP APIs: contract tests + integration harness with seeded data.

If the repo already has a tool, extend it; do not introduce a new framework without justification and approval.

5) Produce UAT Plan + Sign-off Checklist

Include ownership, environment details, and how to report bugs.

UAT Plan Template

# UAT Plan: {feature/change}

## Scope
- In scope:
- Out of scope:

## Environments
- {local/staging/prod-like}
- Test accounts / roles:

## Test Data
- Seeds/fixtures:
- Reset/cleanup:

## Scenarios
### AT-001: {title} (maps: REQ-…)
**Preconditions:**
**Steps:**
**Expected:**
**Notes:**

## Sign-off
- [ ] All “In scope” scenarios executed
- [ ] High/critical bugs resolved or waived (with rationale)
- [ ] Release notes updated (if user-visible)

Bug Report Template

**Title:** {short}
**Scenario:** AT-…
**Environment:** {commit, env}
**Steps to reproduce:** …
**Expected:** …
**Actual:** …
**Attachments:** logs/screenshots

Constraints

• Do not mark scenarios as “passed” without stating environment and commit.
• Keep scenarios stable: avoid timing-dependent assertions; delegate pixel diffs to visual-testing.