|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2019-04-19 07:28 UTC|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | My Account|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004048||TestLink||New Feature||public||2010-11-23 07:24||2015-01-25 17:42|
|Product Version||1.9 (Prague)|
|Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0004048: Show which test cases that are affected due to a changed requirement|
|Description||For test cases where a requirement has changed it would be useful to get an indication of this, either in a report or in the test specification view.|
This would apply both for unexecuted test cases (so its easy to find and update afected testcases), and more importantly for executed test cases.
|Steps To Reproduce||- Link a TC to one or several requirement(s)|
- Freeze the requirement
- Execute the TC
- Edit the requirement by creating a new version
- Now the executed test should be able to indicate that it was executed before the affected requirement changed
|Additional Information||Maybe its sufficient to just go with the test case modification date and the requirement modification. If the test case was executed or not is maybe not of interest. If the "requirement change date" is newer than the linked "test case modification date" then there is enough information for a report|
|Tags||OUTDATED TEST CASES|
|QA Team - Task Workflow Status|
Reminder sent to: Julian
Need your opinion
we were talking about this mechanism before.
every test case should be marked as "needs review" after a linked requirement has been edited. we wanted to add a column on "req_coverage" table to indicate this state if i remember right.
more difficult will be to make use of this indicator. it must be easy to reset this indicator for a set of test cases. maybe it must be user-controlled if this indicator is set.
1.User changes formatting of a requirement -> indicator is useless.
2.User changes the status of a requirement -> must be easy to reset indicator for all linked test cases
edited on: 2011-04-04 18:17
Edit of Req. should provide a checkbox to raise the indicator while saving for linked test cases.
Indicator should be set automatically when creating a new version of a requirement (e.g. by importing a changed set of requirments from the customer)
When manually editing a requirement, a checkbox is sufficient
|Any update on this issue ?|
|Target Date is set properly. No development yet. Feel free to contribute.|
This would be for me also a crucial functionality.
In addition it would be great when it could be applied also at relationships between requirements too.
When a top level requirement in a MRS or a regulations module gets changed (that can be in a different Project for being independent), all derived requirements should be reviewed again and modified consequently if necessary.
Test link should set a kind of "to be reviewed status" and notify the author of the req. spec. where the requirement is in.
Also it should be very convenient to have an option that avoids freezing a requirement when its parent is not frozen and executing a test case when its linked requirements are also not frozen.
This would avoid performing work with "incomplete" specifications or when work is still to be done.
it seems to me that you do not follow the simpler and recognized standard on issue reporting:
1 Topic needs 1 Ticket
this is the only way I work in this project, then
I'm going to ignore the content of note 22532, expect 'This would be for me ..'
you can open a new ticket with a detailed requirement.
Good to know this feature is crucial for you: does this means you can contribute in some way to the development ?
I though my note could be an enhancement of the main topic as it is more or less about the same thing and it was being discussed how it was going to be implemented. I will create then a new ticket with a more detailed requirement.
Yes, it would be crucial for me because in the company I work we are applying new development procedures and we are selecting the set of software tools to support them. This "feature" I described in my previous note is one of the requirements in those procedures and there are few commercial tools able to perform them.
So my answer is yes. I am not php programmer but If I can I would like to contribute. Any suggestions?
>> So my answer is yes. I am not php programmer but If I can I would like to contribute. >> Any suggestions?
You can sponsor the development of this feature. (pay for the feature development)
Contact me to email@example.com
|2010-11-23 07:24||mrosq||New Issue|
|2010-11-23 09:57||fman||Note Added: 0012713|
|2010-11-23 10:07||Julian||Note Added: 0012714|
|2011-04-04 05:29||Julian||Relationship added||has duplicate 0004373|
|2011-04-04 14:02||amitkhullar||Note Added: 0014416|
|2011-04-04 18:17||amitkhullar||Note Edited: 0014416||View Revisions|
|2011-05-06 11:00||Julian||Relationship added||has duplicate 0004458|
|2011-05-06 11:04||fraggl||Note Added: 0014806|
|2011-05-25 06:01||techieguy||Note Added: 0014940|
|2011-05-25 07:58||Julian||Note Added: 0014945|
|2011-07-22 07:07||Julian||Relationship added||has duplicate 0004677|
|2012-11-25 18:12||fman||Tag Attached: OUTDATED TEST CASES|
|2012-12-09 17:26||fman||Assigned To||=> fman|
|2012-12-09 17:26||fman||Status||new => assigned|
|2015-01-24 13:39||malignosama||Note Added: 0022532|
|2015-01-24 15:17||fman||Note Added: 0022535|
|2015-01-24 15:17||fman||Assigned To||fman =>|
|2015-01-24 15:17||fman||Status||assigned => feedback|
|2015-01-24 19:52||malignosama||Note Added: 0022546|
|2015-01-25 17:42||fman||Note Added: 0022552|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2019 MantisBT Team|