Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | trevor-cross |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Mid Point PresentationShared Test Case Project
By Team Guardians
Agenda
Introduction The Problem What we have done so far Project status Risks Reflections Plan for the fall semester
The Guardians team
Dilip Narayanan
Gaurav Jalan
Nithya Janarthanan
Our mentors
The Mentors said….
Studio projects are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get….
Eduardo Miranda, Associate Teaching Professor, ISR
Vijay Sai, SEI
ClientJason Weighley, Rail Control Systems, Bombardier Transportation
External ConsultantsProf. Anthony TomasicFrederick Pfisterer
FAT Testing Division V&V Testing Division
FAT Test Document
V&V Test Case DocumentI see a lot of overlap. If only I could identify the common test cases !!!
The Problem
Are there any test cases that are similar to the one I am going to write now ?
Match Found
Match not Found
I don’t have to write a new test case.
I have to write a new test case.
This reduces costs.
FAT
V&V
Project Overview
Customer Goals: To help Bombardier testing division to identify at least 20% of the common test cases between their test groups
Academic Goals: To formalize the BT Test Case information in an efficiently searchable and retrievable manner
Project Plan
Approve Milestone plan with Eduardo and attach here, with milestones achieved in green, slipped in red and others in yellow.
Milestone plan
Milestone plan Contd...
M10 Complete examination and Approval of 274 test cases5th October, 2009
Why two tracks
CTCI track:For our domain learningTo reduce customer’s risk by ensuring critical common test cases are
delivered on schedule TCCS track:To provide a scalable solution that can be used for other test casesTo meet our learning objectives
CTCI Status
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
4 816
28 33 40
73
112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112
19
38
57
76
95
114
133
95
118 118 118
140
162
185
207
229
252
274
Cumulative Examined
Actual Planned
Week
# of
test
case
s
CTCI Status - 2
27; 49%27.8; 51%
% of success threshold achieved
Approved Common Need approval for success
112; 41%
162; 59%
Overall Status
Examined Remaining
Tester entersthe use case details
The following test cases are similar1. Test case 12. Test Case 2
Common Test Case Identification System
Hierarchical organization of domain data
Repository ofTest cases
Testing Domain
FAT
Wheel Brakes
V&V
Wheel
Test Case Comparison System - Updates
Technical Research – Identification of suitable approachesLiterature ReviewMentor MeetingsMeetings with Subject Matter Experts
– Prof. Anthony Tomasic– Frederick Pfisterer
Identified areas of Research
Areas of ResearchNatural Language Processing
– Text Processing SystemsVector space models (Lucene)Ontology(Protégé)Hybrid Approach
Identification of suitable approaches
Identify the Technology usage context and Evaluation goals
Develop Model Problem
Plan the Evaluation
Analyze model problems against technology usage context
Is technology a good fit ?
yesNo
Modify Technology or Context
Process for Approach Evaluation
Top 3 Risks
Serial No. Risk Mitigation Strategy
1Customer Unavailability Scheduled meeting with customer in one week's
advance. Negotiating the time period of the customer meeting.
2 Research and learning activity not resulting in a concrete results
Separate Learning Plan iscreated, exclusively for the learning activities.
3 Not Finding any approach to formalize the test cases
Meet with domain specialists from the Clients side to get more insight into the testing process and also scheduled meetings with technology experts.
Reflections - What went wrong
× Busy Customer× Lack of Clarity of project Scope× No Roles and Responsibilities× Lack of a proper Process for each activity× Ineffective Meetings× Activity based planning
Reflections (What went well)
Identified alternate points of contacts with the customer Fixing up the next customer meeting at the end of the current meeting Process for each of the activities
Meeting Common test case comparison Learning and Research activities
Meeting process Buffer time = 15% of total duration Following the time boxing of the agenda items Ideas list (in addition to the action items) Scribe uses a shared Google doc and projects it
Lessons Learnt
Deadlines for the tasksSending across a deliverable on its deadline irrespective of the status of completionWell- defined roles and responsibilities is importantImportance of having a Macro Plan
Plan for the Fall Semester
Completion of Common test case IdentificationVerification and validation of the selected approach to provide the solution
for identifying common test casesTechnical Evaluation Report
Questions for the mentors, etc.
Do we have anything for mentors?
Questions for us?
Backup slides
How we are tracking
G thinks that this slide can be removed. Or if not, at least put it up in bkup slides.
- for ctci i think v dont need to say how v track cuz its too trivial - v can say something on how we are tracking tccs
Processes (we shud delete this)
D and G agreed to remove this slide. Need N’s opinion. brief and generic overview of some of our processes – I don’t think
this is reqd as we don’t really have any other processes except for CTCI and for Meetings
CTCI process we shud put in the bkup slides.
CTCI Process
I’m not sure if this is reqd even for bkup Explain manual comparision diagrammatically, trying to de-
emphasize the manual aspect of this process
Backup slides
SLRC - System Level Requirements CatalogPast projects were Word Documents
Newer projects are moving to Doors/Slate
Design/Development Groups
a) Perform manual tests unique to Development group
Safety Group
a) Write automatic scripts unique to Safety Group
System/Factory Test Groups
a) Write test plan unique to Test Groupb) Test scripts describe manual tests
Design/Development Groups
a) Perform manual regression tests unique to Development group
Safety Group
a) Run scripts unique to Safety Groupb) Perform manual tests
System/Factory Test Groups
a) Perform manual tests unique to Test Group
Dev
elop
men
t Ph
ase
Test
Pha
se
Duplication of effort - Three different test methods are independently developedNo clear method to determine if software is ready for release to V&V and Factory TestsInconsistency across groupsManual testing yields slower turn-around timesLow confidence that all requirements were implemented and tested
Test Scripts / Plans are not continuously updated as the software is debugged.
Manual and incomplete mapping of requirements from SLRC to test scripts
Project Overview – Current Scenario
33
Slide Title to go here
Subheading (first level text)Bullet 1 (second level text)
– Bullet 2• Bullet 3
– Bullet 4
34
The Colours
35
Picture slide
Subheading (first level text)Bullet 1 (second level text)
– Bullet 2• Bullet 3
– Bullet 4
36
Example of suggested chart formatting
Delete categories / series as necessary
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.03.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.03.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.03.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.03.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.03.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
One Two Three Four Five Six
Axi
s tit
le h
ere
Series 8
Series 7Series 6
Series 5Series 4
Series 3Series 2
Series 1
37
Examples of suggested formatting styles
Column heading
Column heading
Column heading
Row heading Data Data Data
Row heading Data Data Data
Row heading Data Data Data
Text box
Text boxWith shadow
Text boxWith shadow