Getting Started with Risk-based Testing

MC
Full-day Tutorials
5/5/2014 8:30:00 AM
Getting Started with Risk-
based Testing
Presented by:
Dale Perry
Software Quality Engineering
Brought to you by:
340 Corporate Way, Suite 300, Orange Park, FL 32073
888-268-8770 ∙ 904-278-0524 ∙ sqeinfo@sqe.com ∙ www.sqe.com

Dale Perry
Software Quality Engineering
Dale Perry has more than thirty-six years of experience in information technology as a
programmer/analyst, database administrator, project manager, development manager,
tester, and test manager. Dale’s project experience includes large-system development and
conversions, distributed systems, and both web-based and client/server applications. A
professional instructor for more than twenty years, he has presented at numerous industry
conferences on development and testing. With Software Quality Engineering for fifteen
years, Dale has specialized in training and consulting on testing, inspections and reviews,
and other testing and quality-related topics.

This page left blank

Notice of Rights
Entire contents © 1986-2014 by SQE Training, unless otherwise noted on
specific items. All rights reserved. No material in this publication may be
reproduced in any form without the express written permission of SQE Training.
Home Office
SQE Training
340 Corporate Way, Suite 300
Orange Park, FL 32073 U.S.A.
(904) 278-0524
(904) 278-4380 fax
www.sqetraining.com
Notice of Liability
The information provided in this book is distributed on an “as is” basis, without
warranty. Neither the author nor SQE Training shall have any liability to any
person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to have
been caused directly or indirectly by the content provided in this course.

Many of the development models in use today originated with the
concepts developed by Dr. Shewhart in 1938 at Bell Laboratories and
extended to manufacturing by Dr. Demming in the 1950s.
This concept was called the life cycle of life cycles.

Formal definitions of testing:
IEEE Standard 829-2008
Testing: the process of analyzing a software item to detect the
differences between existing and required conditions (that is,
bugs) and to evaluate the features of the software item
IEEE Standard 610.12-1990
Testing: the process of operating a system or component under
specified conditions, observing or recording the results, and
making an evaluation of some aspect of the system or
component.

Static testing: Testing of a component or system at specification or
implementation level without execution of that software, e.g., reviews or
static code analysis
Dynamic testing: Testing that involves the execution of the software of
a component or system

Testing every possible data value, every possible navigation path
through the code, and every possible combination of input values is
almost always an infinite task which never can be completed.
Even if it were possible, it is not necessarily a good idea because many
of the test cases would be redundant, consume resources to create,
delay time to market, and not add anything of value.
For example, a single screen (GUI) or data stream, with thirteen
variables, each with three values
• To test every possible combination is 3(13) possible
combinations or 1,594,323 tests
• Plus testing of interfaces, etc.

The purpose of discussing software risk is to determine the primary
focus of testing. Generally speaking, most organizations find that their
resources are inadequate to test everything in a given release.
Outlining software risks helps the testers prioritize what to test and
allows them to concentrate on those areas that are likely to fail or those
areas that will critically impact the customer if they do fail.
Risks are used to decide where to start testing and where to test more.
Testing is used to reduce the risk of an adverse effect occurring or to
reduce the impact of an adverse effect.

Organizations that work on safety-critical software usually can use the
information from their safety and hazard analysis to identify areas of
risk. However, many companies make no attempt to verbalize software
risks in any fashion. If your company does not currently do any type of
risk analysis, try a brainstorming session among a small group of users,
developers, and testers to identify concerns.

Risk Factor
1 Ambiguous Improvement Targets
2 Artificial Maturity Levels
3 Canceled Projects
4 Corporate Politics
5 Cost Overruns
6 Creeping User Requirements
7 Crowded Office Conditions
8 Error Prone Modules
9 Excessive Paperwork
10 Excessive schedule Pressure
11 Excessive Time to Market
12 False Productivity Claims
13 Friction Between Clients and Software
Contractors
14 Friction Between Software Management and
Senior Executives
15 High Maintenance Costs
16 Inaccurate Cost Estimating
17 Inaccurate Metrics
18 Inaccurate Quality Estimating
19 Inaccurate Sizing of Deliverables
20 Inadequate Assessments
21 Inadequate Compensation Plans

Risk Factor
22 Inadequate Configuration Control and Project
Repositories
23 Inadequate Curricula (Software Engineering)
24 Inadequate Curricula (Software Management)
25 Inadequate Measurement
26 Inadequate Package Acquisition Methods
27 Inadequate Research and Reference
Facilities
28 Inadequate Software Policies and Standards
29 Inadequate Project Risk Analysis
30 Inadequate Project value Analysis
31 Inadequate Tools and Methods (Project
Management)
32 Inadequate Tools and Methods (Quality
Assurance)
33 Inadequate Tools and Methods (Software
Engineering)
34 Inadequate Tools and Methods (Technical
Documentation)
35 Lack of Reusable Architecture
36 Lack of Reusable Code
37 Lack of Reusable Data
38 Lack of Reusable Designs (Blueprints)
39 Lack of Reusable Documentation
40 Lack of Reusable Estimates (Templates)

Risk Factor
41 Lack of Reusable Human Interfaces
42 Lack of Reusable Project Plans
43 Lack of Reusable Requirements
44 Lack of Reusable Test Plans. Test Cases
and Test Data
45 Lack of Specialization
46 Long Service Life of Obsolete Systems
47 Low Productivity
48 Low Quality
49 Low Status of Software Personnel and
Management
50 Low User Satisfaction
51 Malpractice (Project Management)
52 Malpractice (Technical Staff)
53 Missed Schedules
54 Partial Life-Cycle Definitions
55 Poor Organization Structures
56 Poor Technology Investments
57 Severe Layoffs and Cutbacks of Staff
58 Short-Range Improvement Planning
59 Silver Bullet Syndrome
60 Slow Technology Transfer

Managers tend to focus on two key elements
• Controlling and managing costs
• Return on investment (ROI)
Marketing and sales people tend to be driven by a singular goal,
“competitive advantage”
• The concerns of marketing and sales are not necessarily
related to functionality, they need an edge
Engineers (developers, analysts, etc.) tend to be focused on the
technology itself
• Driven by the use of “new” technology and techniques
• Not interested in functionality except as it relates to the use of
technology
• Some technically valid decisions may cause functional
problems

Customers are seeking the answer to a very simple question, “can I do
my job?”
Their view of a product is a tool to do their job
If they can’t use your product to that end, it’s a bad product

The concept of risk driven testing applies to all software development
models and processes. It is critical to developing quality software that
meets user/customer expectations and is the focus of both the STEP™
methodology and many of the new agile development processes.
If you analyze the newer “agile” development methods, this is one of the
key concepts. It’s interesting that this is not really a new concept at all; it
has been around for a couple of decades.

There are many different software lifecycle approaches: waterfall, spiral,
incremental delivery, prototyping (evolutionary and throwaway), RAD,
extreme programming (XP), SCRUM, DSDM, etc. The key is to know
which process the project is following and to integrate into that process
as soon as possible (reasonable). The later you get involved, the less
chance you have to prevent problems.

More information can be obtained on the planning process from several
courses offered by SQE as well as the STAR tutorial on test planning
and management.

This model is based on the risk analysis part of the STEP™ testing
methodology developed by Software Quality Engineering.

Reference materials include any information available that can assist in
determining the testing objects/conditions.
Some lifecycles do not have formal sources of documentation. No
formal requirements are written. However, there is usually some
information about what type of system is being created, the platform on
which it will run, the goals of the client, etc.
Any information you can gather will help you better understand the test
requirements for this project.

Risk identification and assessment needs to include the
viewpoints noted earlier
The key is to include testers to focus the team on the
testing issues and to help determine the priority of the
features to be developed
Testers need to know the risks and issues in order to
properly analyze and design reasonable tests
Different groups have different ideas about software. The more of these
disparate groups you can combine, the more accurate the picture you
will have of the risks, priorities, and goals for development, and the
more accurate the testing goals and objects/conditions for this project
become.

The inventory process is an iterative process. You begin the process at
requirements and continue the process at each stage of the
development process. How far you take the process is determined by
the scope and risks associated with the software being tested. In
addition to the process being iterative, it is also cumulative.
The information from requirements is used to improve the requirements
(static testing/reviews), to focus the design, and possibly to improve the
design.
At the design stage of a project the information from the requirements
inventory process is used to evaluate the design and to ensure
problems are corrected and additional items are gathered from the
design. This process can be continued as far as the risks to the project
warrant.

There are some common aspects of applications that can be drawn
from the design specifications

Impact is sometimes referred to as severity.
Once the inventory has been built, the next step is to determine the
Impact and likelihood of something going wrong with each of the
elements identified in the inventory.
• Determine the impact (loss or damage) and likelihood
(frequency or probability) of the feature or attribute failing.
While some organizations like to use percentages, number of
days/years between occurrences, or even probability “half lives,” using
a set of simple categories such as the ones listed in the slide above
typically provide sufficient accuracy.
If the likelihood or impact of something going wrong is none or zero,
then this item could be removed from the analysis. However, the
removal should be documented.
• This is not recommended. Just leave it in the inventory, it will
naturally drop to the bottom.

Most organization use a combination of both methods
• Qualitative helps express risk in terms a person can
understand
• Quantitative is then used in conjunction with qualitative
categories to create a matrix with each risk given a weighted
priority
Each qualitative category needs to be defined in the organization’s
overall process directives. Ideally, there needs to be several examples
of each risk assessment category to aid people is determining which
category is appropriate to the object they are assessing.
Risk is in the eye of the beholder as noted earlier
• Any two people may look at the same event and see an
entirely different set of issues. What is critical to one may be
trivial to the other

Likelihood = The probability or chance of an event occurring (e.g., the
likelihood that a user will make a mistake and, if a mistake is made, the
likelihood that it will go undetected by the software)
Impact = The damage that results from a failure (e.g., the system
crashing or corrupting data might be considered high impact)

Under likelihood and impact, there may be differences of opinion as to
the risk. It can be high business risk but low technical risk, etc. So you
may have to compromise on an acceptable level of risk.
The numbers are calculated using the values from our original matrix
(page 70 and multiplying them.
H = High which has a value of 3
M = Medium which has a value of 2
L = Low which has a value of 1

Make adjustments and sort by the agreed priority. We now have a risk-
based assessment of what needs to be tested.

Of course, successful prioritization of risks does not help unless test
cases are defined for each risk—with the highest priority risks being
assigned the most comprehensive tests and priority scheduling. The
object of each test case is to mitigate at least one of these risks.
If time or resources are an issue, then the priority associated with each
feature or attribute can be used to determine which test cases should
be created and/or run. If testing must be cut, then the risk priority can
be used to determine how and what to drop.
• Cut low risk completely (indicated by the horizontal line).
If you plan to ship the low risk features, you may want to consider an
across the board approach At least that way, the features do not ship
untested (risk unknown). This will entail some additional risk as higher
risk features get less testing.

Risk mitigation/Risk control: The process through which decisions
are reached and protective measures are implemented for reducing
risks to, or maintaining risks within, specified levels.
Risk type: A specific category of risk related to the type of testing that
can mitigate (control) that category. For example the risk of user-
interactions being misunderstood can be mitigated by usability testing.

Murphy’s Law: “If anything can go wrong, it will, and will do so at the
worst possible time”.

Although exploratory testing primarily relies on the skills and
knowledge of the tester and tends to be more dynamic than traditional
technique-driven design, it too can be more formalized. Using the
inventory process as part of an exploratory test process can add
structure to the definition of the areas to be investigated rather than
relying only on the skills of the individual tester.

The level and complexity of documentation represents a serious risk to
the testing process.
• Too much overly detailed, complex documentation takes
significant time to design and create. When things change, the
maintenance costs can be extreme.
• Excessive detail is not necessarily a good characteristic of
documentation.
Too little documentation—with insufficient information to allow for the
analysis, understanding, and maintenance of the tests—is equally bad.
• The time spent reacquiring lost knowledge can be very
expensive.
The key is to strike a balance between the level of detail in test
documentation and the time and cost to define, create, and maintain
that same documentation.

The goal is to avoid gaps in the testing as well as to avoid overlapping
testing too much.
Depending on how you define your inventories, based on generic
groupings or application specific groupings, the idea to decide who will
test which objects at what stage/level.
Some objects cannot be tested until later stages of the process (i.e.,
scenarios and usage based objects). Conversely some elements, such
as field edits, valid ranges, error messages etc., are best tested in the
earlier stages. These code logic elements, created by the programmers,
are best tested at that stage of the process. Finding such errors late in
the process can be very costly.

The sequence is
• Planned
• Specified
• Implemented
• Executed
• Passed/failed
Again, a trace matrix can help. If you don’t know how many tests were
planned, how do you assess progress?
Passed/failed only has meaning if you know what you were intending to
do.

The first document in this series is the overall project
overview and the project requirements specification.

Reassigned Sales – Project Overview
This project is expected to take approximately 8 months to implement.
The staffing for this project will come from the following internal Widgits
departments:
• Marketing and Sales
• Internal MIS
• Applications development
• Quality Assurance
• Infrastructure
• Data base administration
• Network administration
Each department will be responsible to the overall project manager for providing
identified resources. The specific roles and responsibilities will be determined by the
project manager working within corporate guidelines.
Additionally our vendor Zippy Corp. will be providing assistance in the following
areas:
Applications development
• XML programming and support
• AS/400 programming assistance
Testing and verification
• Overall testing strategy
• Test design and specification
• Verification of the conversion of XML data into Widgits database formats
• Working with the Marketing and Sales department to create and verify an
acceptance test plan

137
This application consists of a manufacturer (Widgets Inc.), that sells a product through a
sales staff but also allows its’ products to be sold by third party distributors and retail
outlets (resellers). Because the company allows this invasion into their sales people’s
territories they have a method for calculating the degree of encroachment and
compensation for the affected sales representative.
1. The reassigned sales system will receive reassigned sales data though an XML
interface using standard data definitions.
1A. A separate transaction type will be used to identify sales data from client address
data and both types of data will be passed to the new reassigned sales process.
• It is recognized that each third party may have separate internal account numbers
for their customers. The Widgits database will have to provide a mechanism
where-by a Widgits account number can be associated with multiple third party
account numbers; all sharing one address record in the Widgits database.
• Account information will use a separate XML data format transaction type and
will be separated into their own data base files.
• The account information will be validated against the existing customer master
file to ensure no duplicates are stored.
• A separate cross reference table will be created to identify individual accounts
that purchase both directly from us and a distributor and those that purchase from
multiple distributors.
• There is a minimum amount of account identification that must be received to
create an account. The process must identify any incomplete accounts and the
sales administration must have a method for correcting these records.
2. An on-line process will be created for the sales administration staff providing the
following functions.
2A. Provide data roll-up displays allowing sales staff to review sales data by individual
week or by the month.
2B. Allow sales data received in a week to be posted back to the previous sales week,
eliminating the need for manual adjustments.
• A cutoff period will be defined as to how long the system will wait for a reseller
to report sales data. Once that cutoff has been reached all reported sales will be
moved to the next sales period for calculating a sales person’s compensation.
2C. The application will allow the sales staff to eliminate groups and sets of transactions
(received through the XML interface) that are in error, or appear to be duplicated.

138
2D. Provide on-line review capabilities to allow the sales staff to review whether a
reseller has or has not sent in their sales data.
• A form of notification process will be provided to do the following:
• Notify the sales commission staff of a late distributor.
• Provide a mechanism (XML based) to contact the distributor.
• Provide a process for the vendor to request a delay. If delayed the data
would automatically move to the next reporting period.
• A notification to the affected sales person(s) of this delay in commission
credit.
2E. Allow the sales staff to activate the commissions posting process after all data has
been reviewed.
• The posting process “must be” initiated by a staff person.
2F. Provide a reports menu with reports by sales region, sales person, month, week,
product line.
3. The system must provide an archive system to remove posted transactions from the
active files on a monthly basis.
• This process must execute after the monthly close has been processed.
• Transactions that are not in a valid state and that have not been posted will be
removed from the active system during archiving but will be retained on the
archive for later analysis.
• Transactions in a valid state, that have not been posted will be retained on the
active files and will be rolled in into the next period (first week) sales data,
regardless of sales date.
• These transactions will not be archived until they have been posted.
4. Prototype screen layouts and report layouts will be provided for user review during
the early stages of system development.
• Once the prototypes have been approved, all additional changes will be addressed
on an as needed, priority basis within the constraints of the project time line.
5. An initial accounts address generation run can be made by a distributor to send in all
available account information prior to starting the XML process. This will enable us to
have an initial set of account records in place.
• Vendors must be provided the opportunity to add, change and delete customer
address records related to their sales activities.
• However, once a record is added to the Widgit’s master address file it will not be
deleted unless all the following are true.
• There are no other vendors related to the same end client.
• There are no direct sales to the client by Widgit’s sales persons.
• The record has not had a recorded purchase in the last two years.

The following are the initial test objects for the
Reassigned Sales project.
An initial high level risk assessment will be done on
these items in conjunction with the systems design
process.

TEST OBJECT INVENTORY - REQUIREMENTS BASED
1. REQUIREMENTS
A. XML
B. Order Entry shared interface
C. New/modified screens
D. New/modified reports
E. Sales account information
F. Sales calculations
G. Legacy systems interfaces
H. Archive
2. FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS
A. Order Entry interface
B. Manual interface
C. Reports interface
D. Sales account information
3. TRANSACTIONS
A. XML from distributors
B. XML to distributors
C. Mailbox management
D. External applications (legacy, back office)
4. DATA
A. New format AS/400 database files
B. Messages
C. Conversion
D. Archive
E. Recovery and backups
5. INTERFACES
A. Order Entry
B. Manual User interface
C. Reports interface
D. Sales account information (existing)
E. XML

F. Account data files
G. External applications
6. PERFORMANCE
A. Data downloads from mailbox
B. Manual user screens (roll-ups etc.) response time
C. Archive (delays in processing could result for OE)
D. Sales commissions reports (timeliness do to delayed postings)
E. Database responsiveness (volume)
7. CONSTRAINTS
A. Security access to screens
B. Access to mailbox service
8. BACK-UP AND RECOVERY
A. Archive

The following is the risk assessment based on the
object inventory developed from the requirements
specification.

Some potential risk factors to consider include:
Impact risk factors
• Endangerment of human life or highly valued resources increases the
impact risk
• For non-critical features, the more immediate the failure detection the
lower the impact risk
• The increased availability of a practical work-around lowers the impact
risk
• Updating critical data structures is riskier than just accessing them
• Interfaces with critical functions are riskier
Likelihood risk factors
• New components are riskier than reliable, existing ones
• Components with a history of unreliability are riskier
• Frequently changed components tend to get disorganized over
time
• Components developed by personnel with a record of poor product
reliability are riskier
• Components developed by personnel with a poor understanding of
either the requirements or the design are riskier
• This can be compounded by projects that use outsourced
services
• Components with frequently changing requirements are riskier
• Poorly designed components are riskier
• Programs solving complex problems are riskier than those solving
simpler ones
• Programs doing multiple functions are riskier that those doing the
corresponding single functions
• The more dynamic and complex the data structure, the riskier

The following inventory and risk assessment will be used in the test planning process.
Close coordination with the developers will be required to ensure critical features are
developed in a priority sequence where possible. The development of any non-critical
features, early in the schedule, must be approved by all management groups (project,
development and testing).
Elements indicated, as High risk must be considered for development first as other
features are, to a great degree, dependent on the completion of those features first. All
risk assessments included user, technical and testing considerations in assigning the risk
and priorities.
The priorities are in descending order from 10 (highest) to 1 (lowest) Categories break
down as follows
High 10, 9, 8
Medium 7, 6, 5
Low 4, 3
Very low 2
No risk 1
OBJECT INVENTORY -
REQUIREMENTS BASED
INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT
(COMBINED)
RISK PRIORITY
1. REQUIREMENTS
A. XML High 10
B. Order Entry shared interface High 10
C. New/modified screens Medium 7
D. New/modified reports Low 4
E. Sales account information High 9
F. Sales calculations High 10
G. Legacy systems interfaces Medium 7
H. Archive Low 3
2. FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS
A. Order Entry interface High 10
B. Manual interface Medium 7
C. Reports interface Low 4
D. Sales account information High 9

3. TRANSACTIONS
A. XML from distributors High 10
B. XML to distributors High 10
C. Mailbox management Medium 7
D. External applications (legacy, back office) Medium 7
4. DATA
A. New format AS/400 database files Low 4
B. Messages Low 4
C. Conversion High 10
D. Archive Low 4
E. Recovery and backups Medium 5
5. INTERFACES
A. Order Entry High 10
B. Manual User interface Medium 7
C. Reports interface Low 4
D. Sales account information (existing) High 9
E. XML High 10
F. Account data files High 9
G. External applications Medium 7
6. PERFORMANCE
A. Data downloads from mailbox High 9
B. Manual user screens (roll-ups etc.) response
time
Low 4
C. Archive (delays in processing could result for
OE)
Low 3
D. Sales commissions reports (timeliness do to
delayed postings)
Medium 5
E. Database responsiveness (volume) Low 3

7. CONSTRAINTS
A. Security access to screens Medium 6
B. Access to mailbox service Low 4
8. BACKUP AND RECOVERY
A. Archive Low 3

The next document is the system level test plan for
the project.

1. TEST PLAN IDENTIFIER RS-STP01.3
2. REFERENCES
1. Reassigned Sales System Rewrite Requirements - SST_RQMT04.1
2. Reassigned Sales Master test plan RS-MTP01.3
2. Reassigned Sales General Design Specification - RS-SDS01.3
3. INTRODUCTION
This is the System/Integration Test Plan for the Reassigned Sales project. This plan will
address only those items and elements that are related to the Reassigned Sales process, both
directly and indirectly affected elements will be addressed. The primary focus of this plan is to
ensure that the new Reassigned Sales application functions within the proscribed limits and
meets the minimum functions specified in both the requirements specification and the general
design specification.
The system/integration testing will begin as soon as the first complete increment of the
application is available. It is anticipated that the application will be available in several
increments as identified in the test items section. Systems/integration will be conducted by the
development team with the assistance of one full time test person. The sales administration team
will be involved in the screen/report verification process only. Final user approval and
acceptance will be during acceptance testing.
4. TEST ITEMS
The following is a list of the functional areas to focus on during systems/integration testing.
Each area will be a separate test cycle with the complete process being tested as the final phase.
Test 1. - XML Interface
Test 2. - Translator Interface (both sales data and account information)
Test 3. - Manual Intervention interface (including all review/update screens)
Test 4. - Reassigned sales posting process
Test 5. - Reassigned sales reports
Test 6. - Archiving
Test 7. - Backup and recovery

5. SOFTWARE RISK ISSUES
There are several interface issues that require additional focus during systems test in addition
to those issues identified in the Master test plan RS-MTP01.3
A. The XML interfaces’ capability to support the added reassigned sales transaction volume
in addition to the current Order Entry transaction Volume.
B. The different timing of the two interfaces pulling from the shared mailbox on the
Advantis network. The reassigned sales transactions must append to the existing files until
the process is executed to process the data.
C. The reformatting of the XML data transaction formats into the appropriate reassigned sale
control files by the translation process is critical to application success.
D. The maintenance of the accounts cross reference file to prevent multiple accounts from
being created must be closely monitored. The manual user intervention required to correct
accounts in error will require close scrutiny to prevent overload of the user process.
E. Proper identification of existing accounts to prevent duplicate accounts is critical to the
accounts process. Single accounts shared by multiple distributors must be properly controlled
through the cross reference file.
F. Availability of the XML interface at the initial distributor. It is critical to beginning
systems/integration testing and will also impact some unit testing.
G. Access to, and updating of, existing customer master file shared with Order Entry. As
Order Entry is an on-line, interactive process file contention and record locking will be a
major concern as our process may generate a large column of account updates to the file.
The distributors have agreed to send initial client files identifying all their current
accounts with their internal account number as well as the information required to identify
the account locally. These will be verified and put through the system in bulk after hours to
avoid problems with Order Entry. However, it is critical that the process be complete and
verified prior to the next days business.
H. Posting the reassigned sales data to the existing summary and history files must be closely
monitored to ensure that the correct to/from accounts are identified and that all transactions
totals balance by distributor. Errors in postings can cause errors in the Order Entry systems
credits and balances processes.

6. FEATURES TO BE TESTED
The following is a list of the areas to be focused on during testing of the application. Key
areas by test cycle are noted.
Test Cycle 1. - XML Interface
A. Receipt of transactions.
1. Transaction reformatting
2. Single Distributor
3. Multiple Distributors
4. Single daily pull
5. Multiple pulls in a single day
6. With Order Entry data
7. Sales data alone
8. Overlapping requests
B. Error recovery
C. Backups
D. Access to XML process and menus
Test Cycle 2. - Translator Interface (both reassigned sales and account information)
A. Sales transaction
1. Valid transaction
2. Error transactions
3. Error report
B. Account transactions
1. New accounts
2. Account updates
3. Duplicate accounts
4. Account errors
5. Cross reference file maintenance
6. Error and status reports
7. Weekly control files updates
8. Control table processing
Test Cycle 3. - Manual Intervention interface (including all review/update screens)
A. Access controls (security)
B. Account review screen(s)
1. Account Errors
2. Valid account review
3. Customer master file updates/adds
4. Cross reference file updates/adds
5. Account change process
C. Sales transaction review
1. Monthly screen(s)
2. Weekly screen(s)

D. Accounts generation
1. Holding file processing
2. Cross reference file
3. Customer master file
4. Submission of update job
E. Reports
1. Monthly transmission report
2. Weekly transmission report
3. New accounts report
4. Territory report
5. Account match report
Test Cycle 4. - Reassigned sales posting process
A. Sales transaction postings
B. Weekly control file updates
C. Sales History file updates
D. Decision support system file updates
Test Cycle 5. - Archiving
A. Manual archive request
B. Automated monthly archiving process
C. File cleanup and compression
Test Cycle 6. - Independent reports (converted from prior system)
A. Distributor reports
B. Retail reports
C. High volume purchase reports
D. Variance reports
E. Decision support system reports
Test Cycle 7. - Backup and recovery
A. Recovery of interrupted XML transmission
B. Restart of translation process at each step in the process
1. Verification of control areas for restart
C. Restart of Account update process after interrupt
D. Restart of Posting process after interrupt
7. FEATURES NOT TO BE TESTED
Other than those areas identified in the master test plan no additional areas have been
identified for exclusion.

8. APPROACH
System/Integration (combined) will commence as soon as the function parts of the
application are available as identified in the individual test cycles in section, features to be tested.
A requirement has been noted for an additional full time independent test person for
system/integration testing. However, with the budget constraints and time line established; most
testing will be done by the test manager with the development teams participation.
Entry into system testing will be controlled by the test manager. Proof of unit testing must be
provided by the programmer to the team leader before unit testing will be accepted and passed on
to the test person. All unit test information will also be provided to the test person.
Program versions submitted for systems/integration testing will be copied from the
development libraries into the test team libraries and will be deleted from the development
library unless the module is segmented and will be used in several overlapping test cycles. If the
module is to be delivered in functional segments then additional regression testing of previous
test cycles will be performed to ensure all functions still work properly.
9. ITEM PASS/FAIL CRITERIA
Each test cycle will be evaluated on an individual basis. If a cycle has no critical defects and
only one (1) major defect, providing it has a functional, reasonable, work-around, the cycle will
be considered complete in terms of starting the next, independent cycle. The major defect will
have to be corrected prior to going to acceptance testing. Minor defects will be addressed on an
as needed basis depending on resource availability and project schedule. However, if there are
more than fifteen minor defects in a single aspect of the application the systems test cycle will be
considered incomplete.
Acceptance testing can begin even if there are two major defects in the entire application.
This is acceptable if there are reasonable workarounds. All Major defects must be repaired prior
to pilot testing and final acceptance testing.
In some instances; (low impact majors and minors), the application can be corrected and
bypass systems/integration testing. This decision will be made by the Test Manager and Project
Manager on an on-going basis

10. SUSPENSION CRITERIA AND RESUMPTION REQUIREMENTS
1. No Distributors are ready for testing when system testing is scheduled to begin.
Some testing can be done in areas such as general application flow and module
integration but actual data validation and verification cannot be done until data is received
from the distributors. Systems testing will be delayed for a time period to be determined
based on the delay in receiving data from the distributor(s).
11. TEST DELIVERABLES
A. High level System/Integration test design
B. Defect reports
C. Weekly testing status reports
D. Sample reports from process execution
12. REMAINING TEST TASKS
TASK Assigned To Status
Create Requirements based
Inventories
Client, PM, TM,
Dev, Test
Create/Update Design inventories Dev, TM, PM,
Test
Create System/Integration Test
Design
TM, PM, Test
Define System/Integration Test
rules and Procedures
TM, PM, Test
Setup Controlled Test
environment
TM, Test

13. ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS
The following elements are required to support the Systems/Integration testing.
A. Access to both the development and production AS/400 systems; for development, data
acquisition and testing.
B. Creation and control of test team libraries for systemsintegration testing. A separate set
of source control libraries, data files, and control tables will be required to ensure the quality
of systems testing.
C. A time segment on the data transmission interface to receive test XML transmissions
from the distributors. This segment should also have time where overlap exists with the
Order Entry process.
14. STAFFING AND TRAINING NEEDS
Time will have to be allocated to the test team to allow for source file movement and data
acquisition and control. Time will also have to be allocated to allow for weekly defect and status
reports to be prepared for the team and a meeting will have to be scheduled to report on
system/integration test results. Time must be allocated to the development team members to
attend systems/integration status meetings when required.
15. RESPONSIBILITIES
TM PM Dev
Team
Test
Team
Client
Create Requirements based Inventories X X X X X
Create/Update Design inventories X X X X
Create System/Integration Test Design X X
Define System/Integration Test rules and
Procedures
X X X
Setup Controlled Test environment X X
The entire project team will participate in the review of the system and detail designs as well as
review of any change requests that are generated by the user or as a result of defects discovered
during development and testing. The full team will participate in the initial development of the
high level

16. SCHEDULE
All scheduling is documented in the project plan time line and is the responsibility of the
project manager to maintain. The Test Manager will provide task estimates as required.
17. PLANNING RISKS AND CONTINGENCIES
1. Limited Testing staff.
The test team is currently comprised of the developers and the Test Manager only.
Additional resources are identified to assist in testing but if those resources are not available
then the development team will have to provide additional assistance to the Test Manager
during systems/integration testing.
If development must assist in systems/integration testing then there is the possibility that
both development and testing will be delayed due to the overlap of resource requirements.
18. APPROVALS
Project Sponsor - Steve Putnam
Development Management - Ron Meade
EDI Project Manager - Peggy Bloodworth
RS Test Manager - Dale Perry
RS Development Team Manager - Dale Perry
Reassigned Sales - Cathy Capelli
Order Entry EDI Team Manager - Julie Cross

Getting Started with Risk-based Testing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Getting Started with Risk-based Testing

Similar to Getting Started with Risk-based Testing (20)

More from TechWell

More from TechWell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Getting Started with Risk-based Testing