It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

RQM: How to group test cases: nested test plans or test suites or ... ?


Jörg Werner (3033881) | asked Jan 10 '14, 9:17 a.m.
In our projects we have many Regression tests. For each component we have a word file with many test cases (including test steps, of course). Now we think about the best approach to import the regression tests.

Currently I see two possibilities:

a) For each Regression Test (Word file) we create a test suite. And the test cases/test scripts will be linked.

   For a project we would have one test plan and the test suites are linked to the test plan.

b) A project has one Master Test Plan and for each Component we have a Sub Test Plan  and test cases are linked to the sub test plan. In this approach no test suites are used.

What is the best practice in RQM? Are there better solutions?

First I thought a) is a good solution, but to be honest when testing it I got a little bit confused because of the mixture of TSER and TCER.

What do you think?

   Thanks!

Accepted answer


permanent link
Sunil Kumar R (1.1k13344) | answered Jan 10 '14, 10:53 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hello! Both approaches are good. But generally Test Suites are used in scenarios where you have a bunch of Test Cases to be executed in a batch (parallel / sequential). But in the given scenario it is not clear if you have such a requirement.

'b)' reduces the complexity at execution since you will only be looking at 1 type of execution records, perhaps give you an option to do better at planning (Master, Child Test Plans..)

Best Regards, Sunil
Jörg Werner selected this answer as the correct answer

Comments
Jörg Werner commented Jan 23 '14, 6:11 a.m.

Hi Sunil,

thanks for the answer. We are starting with manual test scripts. So I think we'll do not use test suites. As soon as we intgerate our automated tests, we migth be using test suites :-)

  Thanks,,Jörg

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.