Independent verification of Test Execution Results
We have a need, as do many other people, to have the ability to allow another person other than the tester or test manager to review and validate TER's ... whilst we can search for and review this data, we need to show that independent verification was indeed performed.
As the TER record doesn't have an option for comments or a history field to show who did what and when, how would you recommend that somebody accommodated this required element ?
As the TER record doesn't have an option for comments or a history field to show who did what and when, how would you recommend that somebody accommodated this required element ?
2 answers
Hi, first to clarify, when we use the term TER we are referring to Test Execution Records. But if you are talking about Test Results, then there is one thing you can try. If you go to Admin/System Properties and select Execution States, you will see the available list. If you pick one of the available Result types (preferably one you don't use) and change it to something like "Reviewed" or "Validated", that choice will be added to the available list on the Results page. Then your reviewer could go in and mark those Test Results that they had reviewed. Would that help?
Hi, first to clarify, when we use the term TER we are referring to Test Execution Records. But if you are talking about Test Results, then there is one thing you can try. If you go to Admin/System Properties and select Execution States, you will see the available list. If you pick one of the available Result types (preferably one you don't use) and change it to something like "Reviewed" or "Validated", that choice will be added to the available list on the Results page. Then your reviewer could go in and mark those Test Results that they had reviewed. Would that help?
That would certainly help, but there still needs to be a place to record any comments, or show who the last person was to touch it .. I don't think changing the state to verified would record the users would it .. but thanks that is certainly a potential workaround