It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

TSER and TCER name creation is different

Leesen Padayachee (9958119) | asked Apr 06 '17, 8:21 a.m.


We are using CLM 6.0. Please advise why this happens:

Test plan with a test schedule called : Time1
Test environment: X
Test Suite : Parent
2 Test cases in the Test Suite called : Child1, Child2

When I generate a TSER with the the schedule and environment: It gets created as - Parent_X_Time1


the associated TCER's in the TSER gets created as :


Why does the schedule not get added to the TCER if we generate an execution record from a Test Suite level?

Please advise if there is a fix for this.


Accepted answer

permanent link
Don Yang (7.7k21110138) | answered Apr 06 '17, 10:05 p.m.

Hi, Leesen

I saw the same behavior in the later version as well.  I could not find any defect related to it so I guess this is how it works: Add the iteration name as a suffix option when generating TSER won't be inherited automatically in TCER creation. I see two ways to workaround this:

. create a TCER separately with Add the iteration name as a suffix so that it will include the iteration as a part of name.
This may not be practical when you have many test cases in the test suite
. when creating TSER, go to Generate Test Environments, you will see option: Add a prefix to the generated name
and add iteration(test schedule) as prefix and "Add the iteration name as a suffix" is not checked, this will create a new test environment with the iteration name in it and becomes a part of TCER name as well.

I think you may want to create a new defect workitem in

or contact support and confirm if this should be a defect or working as expected. Logically we would expect 'Add the iteration name as a suffix' in TSER to be honored in TCER creation and it sounds like a defect.

Leesen Padayachee selected this answer as the correct answer

One other answer

permanent link
Leesen Padayachee (9958119) | answered Apr 12 '17, 3:59 a.m.

Don Yang commented Apr 12 '17, 5:48 a.m.

I am quite sure it is fixed, so it is a defect.

Leesen Padayachee commented Apr 12 '17, 6:10 a.m.

I logged the defect a few days ago, and now it says I assume they fixed it (but no comments to confirm).

Donald Nong commented Apr 13 '17, 5:36 a.m.

The defect is "planned for" 6.0.4 RC1, so the fix should be available in that release or newer. It also has a change set associated, so the actual work should be done already.

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.