Guidelines: Test Plan
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/74100/741002e8fdf9eecc487bb196c55a6fe9ced288c5" alt="doc_artf.gif (288 bytes)"
Test Plan
|
The
test plan contains information about the purpose and goals
of testing within the project. Additionally, the test plan identifies the
strategies to be used to implement and execute testing, and the resources
needed. |
Topics
The purpose of the test plan is to communicate the intent of the testing
activities. It is critical that this document be created as early as possible.
Generating this artifact early in one of the first iterations of the Elaboration
phase would not be too early. It may be desirable to develop the test plan
iteratively, adding sections as the information is available.
Care should be taken in clearly communicating the scope of testing, the
requirements for test, the test strategies, and the resource needs. This
information identifies the purpose and boundaries of the test effort, what will
be tested, how it will be tested, and what resources are needed for testing.
Stating this information clearly, will expedite the review, feedback, and
approval of the test effort.
At the outset of the project, a test plan identifying the overall intended
testing for the project should be created, called the "Master Test
Plan." As each iteration is planned, a more precise "Iteration Test
Plan" is created (or several test plans, organized by type of test),
containing only the data (requirements for test, test strategies, resources,
etc.) that pertain to the iteration. Alternately, this information may be
included in the Iteration Plan, if it
does not make the iteration plan too difficult to manage or use.
Below are some guidelines to better identify and communicate the requirements
for test, test risks and priorities, and test strategies.
Requirements for test identify what will be tested. They are the specific
target of a test. There are a few general rules to apply when deriving
requirements for test:
- The requirement for test must be an observable, measurable behavior. If
the requirement for test cannot be observed or measured, it can't can be
assessed to determine if the requirement has been satisfied.
- There is not a one-to-one relationship between each use case or
supplemental requirement of a system and a requirement for test. Use cases
will often have more than one requirement for test, while some supplemental
requirements will derive one or more requirements for test and others will
derive none (such as marketing or packaging requirements).
The requirements for test may be derived from many sources, including use
cases, use-case models, supplemental specifications, design requirements,
business cases, interviews with end-users, and the software architecture
document. All of these should be reviewed to gather information that is used to
identify the requirements for test.
Functional requirements for test, as their name implies, are derived from
descriptions of the target-of-test's functional behaviors. At a minimum, each
use case should derive at least one requirement for test. A more detailed list
of requirements for test would include at least one requirement for test for
each use case flow of events.
Performance requirements for test are derived from the target-of-test's
specified performance behaviors. Typically, performance is stated as a measure
of response time and/or resource usage, as measured under various conditions,
including
- different workloads and/or system conditions
- different use cases
- different configurations
Requirements for performance are described in the Supplementary
Specifications. Review these materials, paying especial attention to statements
that include the following:
- statements of time, such as response time or timing profiles
- statements indicating that a number of events or use cases must occur in a
stated period of time
- statements comparing the behavior of one item to another
- statements comparing the application behavior on one configuration to that
of another
- operational reliability (mean time to failure or MTTF) over a period of
time
- configurations or constraints
You should derive at least one requirement for test for each statement in the
specification which reflects information such that listed above.
Reliability requirements for test are derived several sources, typically
described in Supplementary Specifications, User-Interface Guidelines, Design
Guidelines, and Programming Guidelines.
Review these artifacts and pay especial attention to statements that include
the following:
- statements reliability or resistance to failure, run-time errors (such as
memory leaks)
- statements indicating code integrity and structure (compliance to language
and syntax)
- statements regarding resource usage
At least one requirement for test should be derived from each statement in
the artifacts that reflects information listed above.
Successful testing requires that the test effort successfully balance factors
such as resource constraints and risks. To accomplish this, the test effort
should be prioritized so that the most important, significant, or riskiest use
cases or components are tested first. To prioritize the test effort, a risk
assessment and operational profile are performed and used as the basis for
establishing the test priority.
The following sections describe how to determine test priority.
Identifying the requirements for test is only part of identifying what will
be tested. Prioritizing what will be tested and in what order should also be
performed. This step is done for several reasons, including:
- ensure the test efforts are focused on the most appropriate requirements
for test
- ensure the most critical, significant, or riskiest requirements for test
are addressed as early as possible
- ensure that any dependencies (sequence, data, etc.) are accounted for in
the testing
There are three steps to assessing risk and establishing the test priorities:
Guidelines for each of these three steps are provided below:
Establishing the priority for test begins with the assessment of risk. Use
cases or components that pose the greatest risk due to failure or have a high
probability of failure should be amongst the first use cases tested.
Begin by identifying and describing the risk magnitude indicators that will
be used, such as:
- H - high risk, not tolerable. Severe external exposure. The company will
suffer great financial losses, liability, or un-recoverable loss of
reputation.
- M - medium risk, tolerable, but not desirable. Minimal external exposure,
the company may suffer financially, but there is limited liability or loss
of reputation.
- L - low risk, tolerable. Little or no external exposure, company has
little or no financial loss or liability. Company's reputation unaffected.
After identifying the risk magnitude indicators, list each use case or
component in the target-of-test. For each use case or component in your list,
identify a risk magnitude indicator, and justify (in a brief statement) the
value you selected.
There are three perspectives that can be used for assessing risk:
- Effect - the impact or consequence of a specified
use case (requirement, etc.) failing
- Cause - an undesirable outcome caused by the failure
of a use case
- Likelihood - the probability of a use case
failing.
Select one perspective, identify a risk magnitude indicator and justify your
selection. It is not necessary to identify an indicator for each risk
perspective. However, it suggested that, if a low indicator was identified, try
evaluating the item from a different risk perspective to ensure the item is
really a low risk.
Below are greater details on assessing risk by these three perspectives.
To assess risk by Effect, identify a condition, event, or action and try to
determine its impact. Ask the question:
"What would happen if ___________?"
For example:
- "What would happen if while installing the new software, the system
runs out of disk space?"
- "What would happen if the Internet connection is lost during an
inquiry transaction?"
- "What would happen if the Internet connection was lost during a
purchase transaction?"
- "What would happen if the user enters an unexpected value?"
Below is a sample justification matrix for these items:
Description |
Risk Mitigation Factor |
Justification |
Insufficient disk space during
install |
H |
Installing the software provides the user with
the first impression of the product. Any undesirable outcomes, such as those
listed below would degrade the user's system, the installed software, and
communicate a negative impression to the user:
- software is partially installed (some files, some registry entries),
which leaves the installed software in an unstable condition, or
- the installation halts leaving the system in an unstable state
|
Internet connection lost during
inquiry |
L |
No damage resulting from the lost
connection is done to the data or database. It is recognized that a lost
connection may communicate a negative impression to the user. |
Internet connection lost during
purchase |
H |
Any lost connections or transactions that
result in the outcomes listed below are unacceptable, as they increase the
overhead costs and decrease profits:
- corrupted database
- partial order
- lost data or order
- multiple orders (replicated)
|
Unexpected value entered |
H |
Any transactions that result in the outcomes
listed below are unacceptable:
- corrupted database
- inaccurate data
|
Assessing risk by Cause is the opposite of by Effect. Begin by stating an
undesirable event or condition, and identify the set of events that could have
permitted the condition to exist. Ask a question such as:
"How could ___________ happen?
For example:
- "How could only some of the files be on the system and not all the
registry entries made?"
- "How could a transaction not be reflected properly in the central
database?
- "How could the billing cycle statement reflect only some of records
in the database that fulfill the desired criteria?"
Below is a sample justification matrix for these items:
Description |
Risk Mitigation Factor |
Justification |
Missing / application files and
registry entries |
H |
Renders the application (and potentially the
system) un-usable. Installation is the first view of the application seen by
the users. If installation fails, for any reason, the user views the
software unfavorably.
Possible causes of this condition include:
- the installation process did not install all the files and update the
registry correctly
- the installation process halted due to user intervention (cancel or
exit)
- the installation process halted due to software / hardware
intervention (insufficient disk space, unsupported configuration, etc.)
- the installation process halted due to unknown conditions
- the user deleted files / registry entries
Of these causes, only the last one cannot be detected and handled by the
installation process. |
Partial order |
H |
Partial orders cannot be fulfilled, resulting
in lost revenue and lost customers.
Possible causes include:
- Internet connection lost due to user action (disconnect modem, turn
off PC, etc.)
- Internet connection lost due to IP
- Internet connect lost due to employee action (disconnect modem, turn
off power to servers, etc.)
|
Corrupt data / database |
H |
Corrupt data cannot be tolerated for any
reason.
Possible causes include:
- Transaction that writes to the database not completed / committed due
to user intervention
- Transaction that writes to the database not completed / committed due
to lost Internet connection
- User enters invalid data in transaction
- Database access methods / utilities
- Database not properly populated (when initially instantiated)
|
Replicated orders |
H |
Replicated orders increase the company overhead
and diminish profits via the costs associated with shipping, handling, and
restocking.
Possible causes include:
- Transaction that writes order to the database replicated due to user
intervention, user enters order twice - no confirmation of entry
- Transaction that writes order to the database replicated due to
non-user intervention (recovery process from lost Internet connection,
restore of database)
|
Inaccurate data for an order |
H |
Any orders that cannot be completed or incur
additional overhead costs are not acceptable.
Possible causes include:
- Order transaction is not completed / committed due to user
intervention
- Order transaction is not completed / committed due to lost Internet
connection
- User enters invalid data
|
Wrong number of records reflected
in statement |
H |
Business decisions and accounts
receivable are dependent upon the accuracy of these reports.
Possible causes include:
- Incorrect search / select criteria
- Incorrect SQL statement
- Corrupt data in database
- Incorrect data in database
|
Assessing risk by Likelihood is to determine the probability that a use case
(or component implementing a use case) will fail. The probability is usually
based on an external factors such as:
- Failure rate(s) and / or density
- Rate of change
- Complexity
- Origination / Originator
It should be noted, that when using this risk perspective, the risk magnitude
indicators are related to the probability of a failure, not the effect or impact
the failure has on the organization as was used in assessing risk by Effect and
Cause.
Correlations between these factors and the probability of a failure exist, as
identified below:
External Factor |
Probability |
Failure discovery rate
and / or density |
The probability of a failure increases as the
failure discovery rates or density increases. Defects tend to congregate,
therefore, as the rate of discovery or the number of defects (density)
increases in a use case or component, the probability of finding another
defect also increases. Discovery rates and density from previous releases
should also be considered when assessing risk using this factor, as previous
high discovery rates or densities indicate a high probability of additional
failures. |
Rate of change |
The probability of a failure increases as the
rate of change to the use case or component increases. Therefore, as the
number of changes increases, so too does the probability that a defect has
been introduced. Every time a change is made to the code, there is the risk
of "injecting" another defect it. |
Complexity |
The probability of a failure increases as the
measure of complexity of the use case or component increases. |
Origination / Originator |
Knowledge and experience of where the code
originated and by whom can increase or decrease the probability of a
failure.
The use of third party components typically decreases the probability of
failure. However, this is only true if the third party component has been
certified (meets your requirements, either through formal test or
experience).
The probability of failure typically decreases with the increased knowledge
and skills of the implementer. However, such factors as the use of new
tools, technologies, or acting as multiple workers may increase the
probability of a failure even by the best workers. |
For example:
- Installing the new software
- "Historically we've found many defects in the components used to
implement use cases 1, 10, and 12, and our customers requested many changes
in use case 14 and 19."
Below is a sample justification matrix for these items:
Description |
Risk Mitigation Factor |
Justification |
Installing new software |
H |
We are writing our own installation utility.
Renders the use of the application un-usable. Installation is the first
view of the application seen by the users. If installation fails, for any
reason, the user views the software unfavorably. |
Installing new software |
L |
We are using a commercially successful
installation utility.
While failed installation renders the use of the application un-usable,
the installation utility selected is from a vendor that has achieved the
number one market share with their product and has been in business for over
four years. Our evaluation of their indicates that the product meets our
needs and clients are satisfied with their product, the vendor, and their
level of service and support. |
High failure discovery rates /
defect densities in use cases 1, 10, 12. |
H |
Due to the previous high failure
discovery rates and defect density use cases 1, 10, and 12 are considered
high risk. |
Change Requests in use cases 14
and 19. |
H |
A high number of changes to these
use cases increases the probability of injecting defects into the code. |
The next step in assessing risk and establishing a test priority is to
determine the target-of-test's operational profile.
Begin by identifying and describing the operational profile magnitude
indicators that will be used, such as:
- H - used quite frequently, many times per period or by many actors or use
cases.
- M - used frequently, several times per period or by several actors or use
cases.
- L - infrequently used or used by very few actors or use cases.
The operational profile indicator you select should be based upon the
frequency a use case or component is executed, including:
- the number of times ONE actor (or use case) executes the use case (or
component) in a given period of time, or
- the number of ACTORS (or use cases) that execute the use case (or
component)
Typically, the greater the number of times a use case or component is used,
the higher the operational profile indicator.
After identifying the operational profile magnitude indicators to be used,
list each use case or component in the target-of-test. Determine an operational
profile indicator for each item in your list and a state your justification for
the indicator value. Information from the workload analysis document (See Artifact:
Workload Analysis Document) may be used for this assessment.
Examples:
- Installing new software
- Ordering items from the on-line catalog
- Customers inquiring about their order on-line after order is placed
- Item selection dialog
Description |
Operational Profile Factor |
Justification |
Installing new software |
H |
Performed once (typically), but by
many users. Without installation however, application is unusable. |
Ordering items from the catalog |
H |
This is the most common use case
executed by users. |
Customers inquiring about orders |
L |
Few customers inquire about their
orders after they are placed |
Item selection dialog |
H |
This dialog is used by customers
for placing orders and by inventory clerks to replenish stock. |
The last step in the assessing risk and establishing a test priority is to
establish the test priority.
Begin by identifying and describing the test priority magnitude indicators
that will be used, such as:
- H - must be tested
- M - should be tested, will test only after all H items are tested
- L - might be tested, but not until all H and M items have been tested
After identifying the test priority magnitude indicators to be used, list
each use case or component in the target-of-test. Determine a test priority
indicator for each item in your list and a state your justification. Below are
some guidelines for determining a test priority indicator.
Consider the following when determining the test priority indicators for each
item:
- the risk magnitude indicator value you identified earlier
- the operational profile magnitude value you identified earlier
- the actor descriptions (are the actors experienced?, tolerant of
work-arounds?, etc.)
- contractual obligations (will the target-of-test be acceptable if a use
case or component is not delivered?)
Strategies for establishing a test priority include:
- Use the highest assessed factor (risk, operational profile, etc.) value
for each item as the overall priority.
- Identify one assessed factor (risk, operational profile, other) as being
the most significant and use that factor's value as the priority.
- Use a combination of assessed factors to identify the priority.
- Using a weighting schema where individual factors are weighed, and their
values and priority calculated based upon the weight.
Examples:
- Installing new software
- Ordering items from the on-line catalog
- Customers inquiring about their order on-line after order is placed
- Item Selection Dialog
Priority when the highest assessed value is used to determine priority:
Item |
Risk |
Operational Profile |
Actor |
Contract |
Priority |
Installing new software |
H |
H |
L |
H |
H |
Ordering items from catalog |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
Customer Inquiries |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
Item Selection Dialog |
L |
H |
L |
L |
H |
Priority when the highest assessed value for one factor (Risk) is used to
determine priority:
Item |
Risk |
Operational Profile |
Actor |
Contract |
Priority |
Installing new software |
H |
H |
L |
H |
H |
Ordering items from catalog |
H |
H |
H |
H |
H |
Customer Inquiries |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
Item Selection Dialog |
L |
H |
L |
L |
L |
Priority when a weighting value is used to calculate the priority:
(Note: in the matrix below, H = 5, M = 3, and L = 1. A Total Weighted value
greater than 30 is a High priority test item, values between 20 and 30 inclusive
are a Medium priority, and values less than 20 are Low).
Item |
Risk (x 3) |
Operational Profile (x 2) |
Actor (x 1) |
Contract (x 3) |
Weighted Value |
Priority |
Installing new software |
5 (15) |
5 (10) |
1 (1) |
5 (15) |
41 |
H (2) |
Ordering items from catalog |
5 (15) |
5 (10) |
5 (5) |
5 (15) |
45 |
H (1) |
Customer Inquiries |
1 (3) |
1 (2) |
1 (1) |
1 (3) |
9 |
L (4) |
Item Selection Dialog |
1 (3) |
5 (10) |
1 (1) |
1 (3) |
17 |
L (3) |
The Test Strategy describes the general approach and objectives of a specific
test effort.
A good test strategy should contain the following:
State clearly the type of test being implemented and the objective of the
test. Explicitly stating this information reduces confusion and minimizes
misunderstandings (especially since some tests may look very similar). The
objective should state clearly why the test is being executed.
Examples:
"Functional Test. The functional test focuses on executing the
following use cases implemented in the target-of-test, from the user
interface."
"Performance Test. The performance test for the system will focus on
measuring response time for use cases 2, 4, and 8 - 10. For these tests, a
workload of one actor, executing these use cases without any other workload on
the test system will be used."
"Configuration Test. Configuration testing will be implemented to
identify and evaluate the behavior of the target-of-test on three different
configurations, comparing the performance characteristics to our benchmark
configuration."
Clearly state the stage in which the test will be executed. Identified below
are the stages in which common test are executed:
|
Stage of Test |
Type of Tests |
Unit |
Integration |
System |
Acceptance |
Functional Tests
(Configuration, Function, Installation, Security, Volume) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Performance Tests
(performance profiles of individual components)
|
X |
X |
(X)
optional or when system performance tests disclose defects |
|
Performance Tests
(Load, Stress, Contention) |
|
|
X |
X |
Reliability
(Integrity, Structure) |
X |
X |
(X)
optional or when others tests disclose defects |
|
The technique should describe how testing will be implemented and executed.
Include what will be tested, the major actions to be taken during test
execution, and the method(s) used to evaluate the results.
Example:
Functional Test:
- For each use case flow of events, a representative set of transactions
will identified, each representing the actions taken by the actor when the
use case is executed.
- A minimum of two test cases will be developed for each transaction; one
test case to reflect the positive condition and one to reflect the
negative (unacceptable) condition.
- In the first iteration, use cases 1 - 4, and 12 will be tested, in the
following manner:
- Use Case 1:
- Use Case 1 begins with the actor already logged into the
application and at the main window, and terminates when the user
has specified SAVE.
- Each test case will be implemented and executed using Rational
Robot.
- Verification and assessment of execution for each test case will
be done using the following methods:
- Test script execution (did each test script execute
successfully and as desired?)
- Window Existence, or Object Data verification methods
(implemented in the test scripts) will be used to verify that
key windows display and specified data is captured / displayed
by the target-of-test during test execution.
- The target-of-test's database (using Microsoft Access) will
be examined before the test and again after the test to verify
that the changes executed during the test are accurately
reflected in the data.
Performance Test:
- For each use case, a representative set of transactions, as identified
in the workload analysis document will be implemented and executed using
Rational Performance Studio (vu scripts) and Rational Robot (GUI scripts).
- At least three workloads will be reflected in the test scripts and test
execution schedules including the following:
- Stressed workload: 750 users (15 % managers, 50 % sales, 35 %
marketing)
- Peak workload: 350 users (10 % managers, 60 % sales, 30 % marketing)
- Nominal workload: 150 users (2 % managers, 75% sales, 23 %
marketing)
- Test scripts used to execute each transaction will include the
appropriate timers to capture response times, such as total transaction
time (as defined in the workload analysis document), and key transaction
activity or process times.
- The test scripts will execute the workloads for one hour (unless noted
differently by the workload analysis document).
- Verification and assessment of execution for each test execution (of a
workload) will include:
- Test execution will be monitored using state histograms (to verify
that the test and workloads are executing as expected and desired)
- Test script execution (did each test script execute successfully and
as desired?)
- Capture and evaluation of the identified response times using the
following reports:
- Performance Percentile
- Response Time
Completion criteria are stated to for two purposes:
- identify acceptable product quality
- identify when the test effort has been successfully implemented
A clear statement of completion criteria should include the following items:
- function, behavior, or condition being measured
- method of measurement
- criteria or degree of conformance to measurement
Example 1
- All planned test cases have been executed
- All identified defects have been addressed to an agreed upon resolution
- All planned test cases have been re-executed and all known defects have
been addressed as agreed upon, and no new defects have been discovered
Example 2
- All high priority test cases have been executed.
- All identified defects have been addressed to an agreed upon resolution.
- All Severity 1 or 2 defects have been resolved (status = fixed or
postponed).
- All high priority test cases have been re-executed and all known defects
have addressed as agreed upon, and no new defects have been discovered.
Example 3
- All planned test cases have been executed.
- All identified defects have been addressed to an agreed upon resolution.
- All Severity 1 or 2 defects have been resolved (status = verified or
postponed).
- All high priority test cases have been re-executed and all known defects
have addressed as agreed upon, and no new defects have been discovered.
This section should identify any influences or dependencies which may impact
or influence the test effort describe in the test strategy. Influences might
include:
- human resources (such as availability or need for non-test resources to
support / participate in test)
- constraints, (such as equipment limitations or availability, or the need /
lack of special equipment)
- special requirements, such as test scheduling or access to systems
Examples:
- Test databases will require the support of a database designer /
administrator to create, update, and refresh test data.
- System performance testing will use the servers on the existing network
(which supports non-test traffic). Testing will need to be scheduled after
hours to ensure no non-test traffic on the network.
- The target-of-test must synchronize the legacy system (or synchronization
simulated) for full functional testing to be implemented and executed
Copyright
⌐ 1987 - 2000 Rational Software Corporation
| |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88f88/88f88184deb0c8aa9892609099dafc86d2baa533" alt="Display Rational Unified Process using frames"
|