Hi Aliya, Please find below our reply for the observations on the config -sequence of names.
Regards Srinivasan J PMP® IBM India Private Limited EGL 'D' Block - 5th Floor , Bangalore 560 071, India Phone : Work : 91-80-41775564 , Mobile: 91-9845815258 "Aliya Walji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/02/2008 12:45 To "Developer" <[email protected]> cc Arpita Adhicary/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jaganathan Srinivasan/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sreenivasulu R Borra/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chandi Datta/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Test case feedback: Configuration - sequence of names Hi Arpita, Here is my first round of feedback for the 'Sequence of names' functionality for the Configuration Changes project in v1.1 of Mifos. As before, the test cases that you provided earlier for this feature are checked into Subversion in the following location: Mifos > Documents > QA > v1.1 QA Documents > v1.1 New Feature Test Cases > Configuration Here's a link to the location: http://tinyurl.com/yqnh53 And now for some brief feedback: (*) I think you have a 'cut and paste' error in Scenario 1 in your document. It includes the text "No additional days are specified as Working Days at the time of installation." I figured this is a typo but wanted to let you know. Sorry for the error. We will be correcting and send back to you. (*) I think you should include scenarios where the configuration is changed post-installation (e.g. after starting up Mifos for the first time and once some data has been entered already). This should be a mandatory case in terms of priority. Yes. We note to include this scenario. (*) Having one scenario where the values are changed from the default in the file before installation should be a mandatory scenario, not optional. We want to make sure that we are checking to see that changes from default work as a high priority test scenario. Yes. We will make the necesary modifications in the scenario. We made the column as optional, as there are no pre requisite action to be initiated in the front end and the custom property files are not mandatory for MIFOS. (*) In terms of overall approach for your test cases, I don't think you need to call out each and every step you perform to test a particular scenario. For example, if you are looking to see if the name fields show up in the correct order on the client creation page, you do not need to call out each step (e.g. select branch office, search for group, etc) and indicate pass/fail for those items, since they are not really relevant to the testing the primary functionality you are looking at. My sense is that you can just put in the steps where you need to verify the name ordering is correct. If something blocks you from getting to the step, you can enter a bug in the issue tracker indicating the area that is broken that is blocking you from proceeding with testing, and then put this bug # in your test case spreadsheet in the remarks section so that it is apparent what the progress is on testing that particular test case. This is just a suggestion to make writing and executing the test cases easier. It also helps for those people reviewing the test cases to just focus on the relevant steps that you are performing to test the feature. We started writing the test cases based on 1.0 test cases which are also in detail format. Our test approach was to keep the details in such a manner even a tester who is not clear on the functionality should be able to test faster and file the bugs. We can discuss over this. (*) When indicating the 'expected outcome' for each of your test cases per test scenario, you should indicate more than just 'personal information page loads', etc. Since you are testing the configuration of the order of client names, you should indicate the expected outcome for what should show on the page (e.g. 'data entry fields for client name should appear in this order', 'data entry fields for spouse/father name should appear in this order', etc). You should call out each case on each page that you are looking to verify the correct name ordering based on your configuration settings. The test cases - SC-001 - TC-011 / Default, SC-002 - TC-022 refers to cross verification with the property file values. The order of the fields in the personal information page, will not change in spite of any change in the property file. And as such the changes will get reflected only after the client creation process is completed. (*) Make sure you cover all of the data entry screens (e.g. new client creation, new system user creation, etc) as well as all of the 'preview' screens (preview client details, preview system user details, etc), the dashboard pages (for clients, system users, groups (list of clients), lists of loan officer names, etc) as well as the search results pages for your test cases for name ordering. You will want to ensure that names are in the correct order for ALL pages where names show up in Mifos. I believe the ordering of fields should not differ for the data entry fields (e.g. client names are entered in the same order regardless of configuration settings), but should differ for all of the pages where you can view the client names. You should probably call this out specifically in your test cases. Thanks for pointing out. We missed it and we are incorporating the other scenarios. Ok, that's it for feedback for right now. Please let me know if you disagree with any of the suggestions or feedback above or if you have any questions about my comments. Once you've incorporated the feedback, I will do a second review and also see if there are any developers who can review your test cases and provide additional feedback. Thanks, Aliya
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
