|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2019-08-21 23:47 UTC|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | My Account|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0001202||TestLink||Test Specification||public||2007-11-22 16:55||2015-04-26 16:36|
|Product Version||1.7.0 final|
|Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0001202: Test-case dependency|
|Description||Dependencies between test-case are very important. There should be a way where you can get this information in the test-link application. With one click on the dependency you must be possible to go the the referenced test-case and return. You also should be able to have a report to visualise the dependencies between different test-cases. Example sometimes you create a test-plan and put in a test-case which in fact has a dependency to another. In current application you are not able to see dependencies so you forget to have a test-case in the plan that should be there. When dependencies would be in the application you could warn the person creating the test-plan that there are dependencies and ask for confirmation to include also the test-case on which the selected test-case is dependent off.|
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Browser||IE Version 6|
|PHP Version||PHP Version 5|
|QA Team - Task Workflow Status|
|Ok, but is a very big implementation|
It should not be an expensive deal I think.
I'm not sure if custom fields could be used. A new numeric field for testcase should be appropriate solution.
The information should disappear for case of copy/move (user should be informed only).
Add TC to Plan is possible. GUI just show a list of TCs where dependecy is broken.
However, the feature brings only low real value. Users store such information in text, now.
Summary: We can add it if you or somebody contribute it. Core team is overloaded with more important issues.
|The code "Relationship" from mantis could be reused. Closed related duplicated issue 426.|
edited on: 2009-02-20 01:19
@Martin: good idea!!!, reusing other code is a must (IMHO)
another idea reganding sending mail on execution:
what do you think if we manage custom field with special name (CF_MAIL_NOTIFY_X)
and if we found this on exec, TL can send mail to this address after exec ?
hope is clear.
|offtopic: I do not count CF as usable for notification. I prefer generic monitoring/notification component. I.e. the same feature could be used for monitoring of change during review of TCs, execution, requirements design, etc. So we can easily enhance it.|
Just to inspire: we added the small routine in configuration, which was searching for the regular expression TC-XXXXX and replacing it by #IXXXXX, where XXXX was the name of test case.
So while writing text of test case, you write "text, see TC-XXXXX" and in the HTML it seen as link. It was not saved in database, no big investments. I could send you a routine, if you are interested.
edited on: 2009-03-25 22:12
I change a target to 1.9. It seems that the feature is really wanted and adaptation of mantis code should not big such large deal. I spread the next suggestions without view into mantis code.
REQ1: Feature is disabled on project level by default. Basic implementation could take Test Cases to Test Case and Requirements to Requirement (n..n).
We should think about types of relation:
- parent/child TC
- predecessor/successor TC
- general relation ("see also") TC, Suite
Parent TC should have result PASS (if all child have PASS).
Successor TC should be executed if predecessor TC passed.
User is notified if condition is not filled. He can choose continue or cancel action.
User can click on linked TC to see it in widget window over the current TC. This window allows to close it and navigate into view page of the linked TC.
- new option on project table
- new table for relations: object internal ID, linked object internal ID, object type: magic number = [TC,REQ(,script)], linked object type, relation type: magic number
- magic numbers must be defined for object type and relation type.
DB: Should be adapted TCxREQ assignment to the same table?
Do we need another relation kind?
|TestCases can be linked (related to, child of, parent of, blocks, depends on)|
|2007-11-22 16:55||voppense||New Issue|
|2007-11-22 16:55||voppense||Browser||=> IE Version 6|
|2007-11-22 16:55||voppense||PHP Version||=> PHP Version 5|
|2007-11-22 17:37||fman||Note Added: 0002700|
|2007-11-22 20:21||mhavlat||Note Added: 0002706|
|2007-11-22 20:22||mhavlat||Priority||normal => low|
|2007-11-22 20:22||mhavlat||Status||new => feedback|
|2008-01-07 01:43||schlundus||Relationship added||related to 0000426|
|2009-02-16 05:27||mhavlat||Note Added: 0005488|
|2009-02-19 18:01||mhavlat||Relationship added||related to 0002128|
|2009-02-20 01:17||fman||Note Added: 0005552|
|2009-02-20 01:19||fman||Note Edited: 0005552|
|2009-02-20 05:42||mhavlat||Note Added: 0005556|
|2009-02-20 05:42||mhavlat||Reproducibility||always => N/A|
|2009-02-20 05:42||mhavlat||Status||feedback => acknowledged|
|2009-02-20 05:42||mhavlat||Category||Custom fields => Test Specification|
|2009-02-26 15:55||mhavlat||Relationship added||has duplicate 0002148|
|2009-02-26 21:22||dave57i||Note Added: 0005651|
|2009-03-25 22:09||mhavlat||Note Added: 0005992|
|2009-03-25 22:09||mhavlat||Priority||low => normal|
|2009-03-25 22:10||mhavlat||Note Edited: 0005992|
|2009-03-25 22:12||mhavlat||Note Edited: 0005992|
|2009-03-25 22:48||mhavlat||Relationship added||parent of 0001748|
|2009-04-07 21:41||mhavlat||Relationship added||has duplicate 0001409|
|2009-06-11 17:39||mhavlat||Relationship deleted||has duplicate 0002148|
|2010-02-23 02:09||mhavlat||Relationship deleted||parent of 0001748|
|2011-11-05 12:11||fman||Relationship added||related to 0004796|
|2015-04-26 15:58||Mr.Bricodage||Relationship added||child of 0007083|
|2015-04-26 16:36||Mr.Bricodage||Note Added: 0023197|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2019 MantisBT Team|