Hi Arpita, Some of the answers to your questions are below. We can discuss these in person when we meet on Monday.
> 1. Loan Independent of Meeting: > > a) (Embedded image moved to file: pic24206.jpg) > > I cannot see this on the Admin page. Could you plz guide me to know where > I > can get the details on this to enable me to create test cases on the same. This page will be a page that says "View organizational preferences" and it will show all of the configuration values that are configured in the config file outside of the UI. In terms of test cases, you will want to verify that the correct settings show up for this feature on that page (indicating that the feature is enabled and also, the min/max # of days between disbursal and first repayment). We are supposed to be feature complete in a couple weeks so the page should be built by then. > b) (Embedded image moved to file: pic32372.jpg) > > As laid down in the functional specs, when the back dated transactions is > switched "on" in the back end, payments are allowed only from the last > meeting date to the curent date (not prior to that). I've also tested this > feature and it is working according to the FS. The information laid down in the functional specs refers to the site behavior prior to adding the feature "Loan schedule independent of meeting schedule". With this feature turned on, which allows loans to be scheduled on non-meeting days, we need to make a decision about whether to change this behavior to allow back dated transactions through the last repayment day (new behavior) or continue to allow through last meeting day. If this distinction (or reason to make this decision) is not clear, I can explain in more detail on Monday. > c) (Embedded image moved to file: pic29228.jpg) > > Redo Loan feature comes to use when a loan by mistake has been done to a > wrong customer. So, the loan to the wrong customer is reversed and it is > redone to the correct customer with a past date. Now, ideally while > redoing > a loan the system should allow the user to enter disbursal date in the > past > which could be prior to the last meeting date. However, "Loan on > non-meeting days" limits back dated transactions only till the last > meeting > date. > Hence, I feel the need for "Redo Loan" still exists. Arpita - in this case, the behavior of the "Redo Loan" path was not specified in the functional spec phase of the design for the "Loan schedule independent of meeting schedule" feature. For this feature, loans are allowed to be scheduled on non-meeting days, thus the redo loan path would also have to be modified to allow loans to be redone with schedules that occur on non-meeting days. We do not yet know how the 'redo loan' path works when the feature "Loan schedule independent of meeting schedule' is turned on, because the feature is not functioning at all right now. I suspect that when it is functioning, we may find that the redo loan path does not allow you to redo loans with schedules on non-meeting days. Thus, we may have to disable the redo loan path when the "Loan schedule independent of meeting schedule" feature is enabled in Mifos until we have time to fix this in another release. > d) (Embedded image moved to file: pic04481.jpg) > > Multiple Account Creation is to facilitate ease of operation to the user. > As in when the user has to create multiple loan accounts for clients under > the same LO, he can do it in one shot. Thus, I think "Loan on non-meeting > days" feature is not directly related to "Multiple Loan Creation". In fact, the two features are related because the multiple loan creation pipeline currently only lets you create loans on meeting days, even if the "Loan schedule independent of meeting schedule" feature is enabled. Thus, the user cannot create multiple loans that occur on non-meeting days and for MFIs that have the "Loan Schedule Independent of Meeting schedule" feature enabled, this is a requirement. If you read the spec, there is information on how the multiple loan account creation path *should* work if "Loan schedule independent of meeting schedule" is enabled, however this functionality was considered out of scope for the developer and thus will not be built. Since it has not been built, we need to consider whether to disable the link for multiple loan account creation or not when "Loan schedule independent of meeting" feature is enabled. > 2. Multiple Adjustments - > > a) (Embedded image moved to file: pic15097.jpg) > Plz note, the status change on reverting payments on closed accounts is > not > happening automatically. I've already raised a bug for the same. However, > since the same was not specified clearly in the FS, it has been taken up > by > the developer of the feature (I think Nazir) to investigate. Jeff is aware of this. I think all he is pointing out is that there should be test cases to test whether all of the state changes that may occur due to making an adjustment are documented in test cases. That way, we remember to test this piece (since it is important that it works correctly) and if there are bugs in that functionality, we can fix them and you can run the test cases again when the bugs are fixed. The bug you opened may be just one of many possible bugs caused by 'state changes' not working correctly. We want to catch all of them that may exist and verify all of the possible state changes. > b) (Embedded image moved to file: pic32653.jpg) > Under "Roles & Permissions" a user can give additional rights to a role to > "revert payments for a closed account". I had tested the function on test > server and its performing as expected. Great, glad to hear that. I think Jeff was probably just documenting notes for his own questions in that case. Perhaps he forgot to remove them or something. Glad you already knew how this worked and tested it. > It would be great if you can throw some more light on the above points. It > will help us to understand the features even more in detail which will > eventually enhance the quality of test cases. Hopefully these answers helped. If not, we can discuss in detail in person and I can clarify what I meant for some of the answers above. We can also go through the test case feedback that Jeff has sent so far and I can explain all of it in person so that it makes more sense. Jeff and I created the scenarios together so I will be able to explain what we meant for all of them in more detail when we meet. 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/
