diff -r 3cedd5a596bb -r 6fb354955c37 +multiblock/Grid.m
--- a/+multiblock/Grid.m	Wed Apr 06 12:54:52 2016 +0200
+++ b/+multiblock/Grid.m	Mon Jun 13 16:49:11 2016 +0200
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
     properties
         grids
         connections
+        boundaryGroups
 
         nPoints
     end
@@ -15,7 +16,9 @@
         %                it's empty there is no connection otherwise it's a 2
         %                -cell-vector with strings naming the boundaries to be
         %                connected. (inverted coupling?)
-        function obj = Grid(grids, connections, boundaryGroup)
+        %% Should we have boundary groups at all? maybe it can be handled in a
+        %% cleaner way outside of the class.
+        function obj = Grid(grids, connections, boundaryGroups)
             obj.grids = grids;
             obj.connections = connections;
 
@@ -23,6 +26,8 @@
             for i = 1:length(grids)
                 obj.nPoints = obj.nPoints + grids{i}.N();
             end
+
+            % if iscell(boundaryGroups)
         end
 
         function n = size(obj)

diff -r 3cedd5a596bb -r 6fb354955c37 +multiblock/GridTest.m
--- a/+multiblock/GridTest.m	Wed Apr 06 12:54:52 2016 +0200
+++ b/+multiblock/GridTest.m	Mon Jun 13 16:49:11 2016 +0200
@@ -11,9 +11,27 @@
 end
 
 function testGetBoundaryNames(testCase)
+    [grids, conn] = prepareAdjecentBlocks();
+
+    mbg = multiblock.Grid(grids, conn, multiblock.BoundaryGroup({1,'w'},{2,'w'}) );
+
     testCase.verifyFail();
 end
 
 function testGetBoundary(testCase)
+    [grids, conn] = prepareAdjecentBlocks();
+
+    mbg = multiblock.Grid(grids, conn, multiblock.BoundaryGroup({1,'w'},{2,'w'}) );
     testCase.verifyFail();
+end
+
+
+function [grids, conn] = prepareAdjecentBlocks()
+    grids = {
+        grid.Cartesian([0 1 2], [3 4 5]);
+        grid.Cartesian([1 2], [10 20]);
+    };
+
+    conn = cell(2,2);
+    conn{1, 2} = {'s','n'};
 end
\ No newline at end of file