I'm wondering how you can define these behaviours for user stories.
They're expectations of the user that you're making explicit.
Are these considered business rules?
Yes.
The tricky part is this.
Story 1: The order is handled manually and a user picks the warehouse. This is front-and-center of everyone's mind. They talk about this at length.
Story 2: The order is handled automatically and a warehouse is picked by the system. This is assumed. What more important is that there's no actual user interaction here. It just "happens" without an actor seeing it or interacting with it. Since there's no interaction, it's not a very good user story. It doesn't lead to a fancy screen and the normal artifacts that go along with a proper user story where a user has interaction with the system.
When "automatic" or "default" things happen, the user story becomes a kind of degenerate case where it seems like less work needs to be done because there's no screens or pages or forms or interaction.
However, when "automatic" or "default" things happen some user somewhere actually does care and actually does need to see that it did happen. Even if it happens in bulk. Somewhere else, there's a variation on user story 2.
Story 3: Someone, somewhere, checks the counts and totals for the default warehouse assignments, including manual and defaults. Here, the default warehouse assignment is seen by an actor who is interacting with the system.
Automatic or default behaviors often highlight the need for review or audit or overview stories to be sure the automatic stuff really happened correctly.
发布评论
评论（3）
“在我看来，你做得非常出色。
是的 - 这绝对是一种绝对属于用例的细节。
恕我直言...
'Sounds to me like you just did an excellent job.
And yes - this is very definitely the kind of detail that absolutely BELONGS in a use case.
IMHO...
它们是您明确表达的用户的期望。
是的。
棘手的部分是这样的。
故事 1：手动处理订单，用户挑选仓库。这是每个人头脑中最关心的问题。他们对此进行了详细的讨论。
故事2：订单自动处理，仓库由系统拣选。这是假设的。更重要的是这里没有实际的用户交互。它只是“发生”而演员没有看到它或与之互动。由于没有交互，这不是一个很好的用户故事。它不会导致精美的屏幕和正常的工件，以及用户与系统进行交互的正确用户故事。
当“自动”或“默认”的事情发生时，用户故事就变成了一种退化的情况，因为没有屏幕、页面、表单或交互，所以似乎需要做的工作更少。
然而，当“自动”或“默认”事情发生时，某个地方的某些用户实际上确实关心并且确实需要看到它确实发生了。即使它是批量发生的。在其他地方，用户故事 2 有所不同。
自动或默认行为通常强调需要审查或审计或概述故事，以确保自动的事情确实正确发生。
They're expectations of the user that you're making explicit.
Yes.
The tricky part is this.
Story 1: The order is handled manually and a user picks the warehouse. This is front-and-center of everyone's mind. They talk about this at length.
Story 2: The order is handled automatically and a warehouse is picked by the system. This is assumed. What more important is that there's no actual user interaction here. It just "happens" without an actor seeing it or interacting with it. Since there's no interaction, it's not a very good user story. It doesn't lead to a fancy screen and the normal artifacts that go along with a proper user story where a user has interaction with the system.
When "automatic" or "default" things happen, the user story becomes a kind of degenerate case where it seems like less work needs to be done because there's no screens or pages or forms or interaction.
However, when "automatic" or "default" things happen some user somewhere actually does care and actually does need to see that it did happen. Even if it happens in bulk. Somewhere else, there's a variation on user story 2.
Automatic or default behaviors often highlight the need for review or audit or overview stories to be sure the automatic stuff really happened correctly.
从我的角度来看，默认行为是主要用户故事，任何替代行为都是另一个用户故事。
所以是的，你必须添加这个用户故事。
谢谢拉德
万先生
From my point of view the default behavior is the main user stories and any alternative is another user stories.
So Yes you have to add this user story.
Thanks
M.Radwan