It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Guidelines | FAQ
Follow this question
Question details

×12,010
×10,958

question asked: Aug 21 '14, 1:52 p.m.
question was seen: 5,316 times
last updated: Feb 20 '19, 1:25 a.m.

Related questions

Which method are people using to review a RQM Test Plan?

0
Matt Beatrice (3●1●1) | asked Aug 21 '14, 1:52 p.m.
Our team is currently investigating different methods of reviewing a RQM Test Plan and have come up with three generic options. The three methods we are investigating are:
  1. use the RQM built in review function
    • PRO - review process handled by RQM, no other tools needed
    • CON - comments go in a review comments section and not in line with the text or section the comment is for
  2. export the test plan to a pdf and use external review tools
    • PRO - can take advantage of other review tools
    • CON - test plan in pdf format and can require many steps to work with other tools or where comments can be added in line with the text
  3. use Rational Publishing Engine to create a customized version of the test plan and test cases and then use external review tools (haven't used RPE but thought it may help us get around the issue of exporting to pdf)
    • PRO - provides more control over the content of the test plan and test cases and resulting file format
    • CON - requires another Rational tool for users to access,  still need a tool for reviewing the test plan

These options obviously have their pros and cons so I am looking to get feedback from other RQM users regarding the method used to review a test plan and appreciate any pros and cons of those methods.     

Thanks in advance

Accepted answer

0
permanent link
David Mehaffy (901●2●33●38) | answered Aug 21 '14, 4:17 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hi Matt

We use number 1.  I think you are probably asking this more because of traditional test plans have a lot of what I would call "boilerplate stuff" in them.  That makes reviewing them harder as you describe.  Test plans are really containers of test cases and execution plans with objectives.  We consider the "meat" of the plan to be the test cases and they go through a separate review/approval process with development and other interested parties.  Once they are approved they are considered as "fixed objects" until someone opens a workitem or task asking for the test case to be enhanced or modified - then it goes through another review/approval process.  The test plan review becomes simpler to review because you can look at the requirements the test plan claims to validate, are the appropriate test cases associated with the test plan to validate those requirements and do you have the right mixture or coverage of test environments. 

The review allows for comments and responses to the the comment much like what is done in work items.  I am an approver of test plans and I will not approve a test plan until test plan owner has addressed all comments by responding to each comment in the review section and the reviewer has agreed by approving his/her review.

By exporting the test plan which 2 and 3 do - you lose this type of dialog or you have to manually have to re-enter it.  It takes time for some people to get used to this methodology but they adapt - we have been doing it this way for over 5 years now and it is generally accepted by our users.

Dave
Matt Beatrice selected this answer as the correct answer
Comments
Matt Beatrice commented Sep 02 '14, 9:55 a.m.

Hi Dave,

I understand your reasons for using RQM's built-in review function for reviewing Test Cases and can see the advantages of doing it that way.

I do have a couple of questions about how you handle the 'boilerplate stuff'

  1. do you include the information considered to be boilerplate in RQM or in a document external to RQM?
  2. how do you review the boilerplate information?
Thanks for your response. Much appreciated.
Matt

2 other answers

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Navneet Srivastava (17●7●12) | answered Sep 02 '14, 4:03 a.m.
Matt ..
I agree with Dave .. Go with 1 . For the cons ... we have created new section by name "Detailed Review" and included a table like below , with this you can keep reviewer comments in line with sections.

S.no

Section

Review Name: Comments

1

Test case Design

User1 : design is not clear , include Topology diagram

Testplan Owner: included diagram

2

Summary Section

User2 : Summary section has many typos

TestPlan Owner: made the correction

3

Test schedule

Manager: Schedules are tight , keep some buffer

Testplan Owner: Milestone testing consumes one week , buffer given for regression testing

 


Comments
Matt Beatrice commented Sep 02 '14, 9:58 a.m.

Navneet,

Thanks for the suggestion. We have thought about doing something similar to what describe and will consider that as we move forward.

Matt

Navneet Srivastava commented Sep 02 '14, 10:13 a.m.

Please vote if you find the answer suitable for your requirement
+Navneet

0
permanent link
Sanitha Pillai (11●8) | answered Feb 20 '19, 1:25 a.m.
Hi ,
How do you handle reviewing multiple test scripts within the test cases, if the test cases are more than 100, opening each test cases --> Test Script--> Test Step, to review is tedious.

How is this handled?

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.