Integration and E2E Testing Principles
References
E2E test design with Playwright: See references/e2e-design.md for UI Spec-driven E2E test candidate selection and Playwright test architecture.
Test Type Definition and Limits
| Test Type | Purpose | Scope | Limit per Feature | Implementation Timing | |-----------|---------|-------|-------------------|----------------------| | Integration | Verify component interactions | Partial system integration | MAX 3 | Created alongside implementation | | E2E | Verify critical user journeys | Full system | MAX 1-2 | Executed in final phase only |
Behavior-First Principle
Include (High ROI)
- Business logic correctness (calculations, state transitions, data transformations)
- Data integrity and persistence behavior
- User-visible functionality completeness
- Error handling behavior (what user sees/experiences)
Redirect to Other Test Types
- External service connections → Verify via contract/interface tests
- Performance metrics → Verify via dedicated load testing
- Implementation details → Verify observable behavior instead
- UI layout specifics → Verify information availability instead
Principle: Test = User-observable behavior verifiable in isolated CI environment
ROI Calculation
ROI is used to rank candidates within the same test type (integration candidates against each other, E2E candidates against each other). Cross-type comparison is unnecessary because integration and E2E budgets are selected independently.
ROI Score = Business Value × User Frequency + Legal Requirement × 10 + Defect Detection
(range: 0–120)
Higher ROI Score = higher priority within its test type. No normalization or capping is applied — the raw score is used directly for ranking. Deduplication is a separate step that removes candidates entirely; it does not modify scores.
ROI Threshold for E2E
E2E tests have high ownership cost (creation, execution, and maintenance are each 3-10× higher than integration tests). To justify creation, an E2E candidate (beyond the must-keep reserved slot) requires ROI Score > 50.
ROI Calculation Examples
| Scenario | BV | Freq | Legal | Defect | ROI Score | Test Type | Selection Outcome | |----------|----|------|-------|--------|-----------|-----------|-------------------| | Core checkout flow | 10 | 9 | true | 9 | 109 | E2E | Selected (reserved slot: user-facing multi-step journey) | | Payment error handling | 8 | 3 | false | 7 | 31 | E2E | Below threshold (31 < 50), not selected | | Profile save flow | 7 | 6 | false | 6 | 48 | E2E | Below threshold (48 < 50), not selected | | DB persistence check | 8 | 8 | false | 8 | 72 | Integration | Selected (rank 1 of 3) | | Error message display | 5 | 3 | false | 4 | 19 | Integration | Selected (rank 2 of 3) | | Optional filter toggle | 3 | 4 | false | 2 | 14 | Integration | Not selected (rank 4, budget full) |
Multi-Step User Journey Definition
A feature qualifies as containing a multi-step user journey when ALL of the following are true:
- 2+ distinct interaction boundaries are traversed in sequence to complete a user goal. What counts as a boundary depends on the system type:
- Web: distinct routes/pages
- Mobile native: distinct screens/views
- CLI: distinct command invocations or interactive prompts
- API: distinct API calls forming a transaction (e.g., create → confirm → finalize)
- State carries across steps — data produced or actions taken in one step affect what the next step accepts or displays
- The journey has a completion point — a final state the user or caller reaches (e.g., confirmation page, saved record, API success response, completed workflow)
User-Facing vs Service-Internal Journeys
Multi-step journeys are further classified for E2E budget decisions:
| Classification | Condition | E2E Reserved Slot | Example | |---|---|---|---| | User-facing | A human user directly triggers and observes the steps (via UI, CLI, or direct API interaction) | Eligible | Web checkout flow, CLI setup wizard, mobile onboarding | | Service-internal | Steps are triggered by backend services without direct user interaction | Not eligible (use integration tests) | Async job pipeline, service-to-service saga, scheduled batch processing |
This classification applies only to the reserved E2E slot and the E2E Gap Check. Service-internal journeys are still valid E2E candidates through the normal ROI > 50 path if they warrant full-system verification.
Use this definition when evaluating E2E test candidates and E2E gap detection.
Test Skeleton Specification
Required Comment Patterns
Each test MUST include the following annotations:
AC: [Original acceptance criteria text]
Behavior: [Trigger] → [Process] → [Observable Result]
@category: core-functionality | integration | edge-case | e2e
@dependency: none | [component names] | full-system
@complexity: low | medium | high
ROI: [score]
Use the project's comment syntax to wrap these annotations (e.g., // for C-family, # for Python/Ruby/Shell).
Verification Items (Optional)
When verification points need explicit enumeration:
Verification items:
- [Item 1]
- [Item 2]
EARS Format Mapping
| EARS Keyword | Test Type | Generation Approach | |--------------|-----------|---------------------| | When | Event-driven | Trigger event → verify outcome | | While | State condition | Setup state → verify behavior | | If-then | Branch coverage | Both condition paths verified | | (none) | Basic functionality | Direct invocation → verify result |
Test File Naming Convention
- Integration tests:
*.int.test.*or*.integration.test.* - E2E tests:
*.e2e.test.*
The test runner or framework in the project determines the appropriate file extension.
Review Criteria
Skeleton and Implementation Consistency
| Check | Failure Condition | |-------|-------------------| | Behavior Verification | No assertion for "observable result" in skeleton | | Verification Item Coverage | Listed items not all covered by assertions | | Mock Boundary | Internal components mocked in integration test |
Implementation Quality
| Check | Failure Condition | |-------|-------------------| | AAA Structure | Arrange/Act/Assert separation unclear | | Independence | State sharing between tests, order dependency | | Reproducibility | Date/random dependency, varying results | | Readability | Test name doesn't match verification content |
Quality Standards
Required
- Each test verifies one behavior
- Clear AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert) structure
- No test interdependencies
- Deterministic execution