Guidelines: Important Decisions in Test

The following decisions should be made regarding the Test discipline's workflow:

Document the decisions in the Development Case, under the headings Disciplines, Test, Workflow.

Decide what artifacts to use and how to effectively make use of them. The table below describes those artifacts we recommend you should make use of and those you might consider using in particular contexts. For more detailed information on how to tailor each artifact, and a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of that specific artifact, read the section titled "Tailoring" for each artifact.

For each artifact, decide how the artifact should be used: Must have, Should have, Could have or Won't have. For more details, see the Guidelines: Classifying Artifacts.

Artifact	Purpose	Tailoring (Optional, Recommended)
Test Evaluation Summary	Summarizes the Test Results for use primarily by the management team and other stakeholders external to the test team.	Recommended for most projects. Where the project culture is relatively information, it may be appropriate simply to record test results and not create formal evaluation summaries. In other cases, Test Evaluation Summaries can be included as a section within other Assessment artifacts, such as the Iteration Assessment or Review Record.
Test Results	This artifact is the analyzed result determined from the raw data in one or more Test Logs.	Recommended. Most test teams retain some form of reasonably detailed record of the results of testing. Manual testing results are usually recorded directly here, and combined with the distilled Test Logs from automated tests. In some cases, test teams will go directly from the Test Logs to producing the Test Evaluation Summary.
Test Log	The raw data output during test execution, typically produced by automated tests.	Optional. Many projects that perform automated testing will have some form of Test Log. Where projects differ is whether the Test Logs are retained or discarded after Test Results have been determined. You might retain Test Logs if you need to satisfy certain audit requirements, if you want to perform analysis on how the raw test output data changes over time, or if you are uncertain at the outset of all the analysis you may be required to give.
Test Suite	Used to group individual related tests (Test Scripts) together in meaningful subsets.	Recommended for most projects. Also required to define any Test Script execution sequences that are required for tests to work correctly.
Test-Ideas List	This is an enumerated list of ideas, often partially formed, to be considered as useful tests to conduct.	Recommended for most projects. In some cases these lists will be informally defined and discarded once Test Scripts or Test Cases have been defined from them.
Test Strategy	Defines the strategic plan for how the test effort will be conducted against one or more aspects of the target system.	Recommended for most projects. A single Test Strategy per project or per phase within a project is recommended in most cases. Optionally, you might reuse existing strategies where appropriate, or you might further subdivide the Test Strategies based on the type of testing being conducted.
[Iteration] Test Plan	Defines finer grained testing goals, objectives, motivations, approach, resources, schedule and deliverables that govern an iteration.	Recommended for most projects. A separate Test Plan per iteration is recommended to define the specific, fine-grained test strategy. Optionally, you can include the Test Plan as a section within the Iteration Plan.
[Master] Test Plan	Defines high-level testing goals, objectives, approach, resources, schedule and deliverables that govern a phase or the entire the lifecycle.	Optional. Useful for most projects. A Master Test Plan defines the high-level strategy for the test effort over large parts of the software development lifecycle. Optionally, you can include the Test Plan as a section within the Software Development Plan. Consider whether to maintain a "Master" Test Plan in addition to the "Iteration" Test Plans. The Master Test Plan covers mainly logistic and process enactment information that typically relates to the entire project lifecycle, therefore it is unlikely to change between iterations.
Test Script, Test Data	The Test Scripts and Test Data are the realization or implementation of the test, where the Test Script embodies the procedural aspects, and the Test Data the defining characteristics.	Recommended for most projects. Where projects differ is how formally these artifacts are treated. In some cases, these are informal and transitory, and the test team is judged based on other criteria. In other cases-especially with automated tests-the Test Scripts and associated Test Data (or some subset thereof) are regarded as major deliverables of the test effort.
Test Case	Defines a specific set of test inputs, execution conditions, and expected results. Documenting test cases allows them to be reviewed for completeness and correctness, and considered before implementation effort is planned & expended. This is most useful where the input, execution conditions and expected results are particularly complex.	We recommend that on most projects, were the conditions required to conduct a specific test are complex or extensive, you should define Test Cases. You will also need to document Test Cases where they are a contractually required deliverable. In most other cases we recommend maintaining the Test-Ideas List and the Implemented Test Scripts instead of detailed textual Test Cases. Some projects will simply outline Test Cases at a high level and defer details to the Test Scripts. Another style commonly used is to document the Test Case information as comments within the Test Scripts.
Workload Analysis Model	A specialized type of Test Case. Used to define a representative workload to allow quality risks associated with the system operating under load to be assessed.	Recommended for most systems, especially those where system performance under load must be evaluated, or where there are other significant quality risks associated with system operation under load. Not usually required for systems that will be deployed on a standalone target system.
Testability Classes in the Design Model Testability Elements in the Implementation Model	If the project has to develop significant additional specialized behavior to accommodate and support testing, these concerns are represented by the inclusion of Testability Classes in the Design Model & the Testability Elements in the Implementation Model.	Where Required. Stubs are a common category of Test Classes and Test Component.
Test Automation Architecture	Provides an architectural overview of the test automation system, using a number of different architectural views to depict different aspects of the system.	Optional. Recommended on projects where the test architecture is relatively complex, when a large number of staff will be collaborating on building automated tests, or when the test automation system is expected to be maintained over a long period of time. In some cases this might simply be a whiteboard diagram that is recorded centrally for interested parties to consult.
Test Interface Specification	Defines a required set of behaviors by a classifier (specifically, a Class, Subsystem or Component) for the purposes of testing (testability). Common types include test access, stubbed behavior, diagnostic logging and test oracles.	Optional. On many projects, there is either sufficient accessibility for test in the visible operations on classes, user interfaces etc. Some common reasons to create Test Interface Specifications include UI extensions to allow GUI test tools to interact with the tool and diagnostic message logging routines, especially for batch processes.

Tailor each artifact to fit the needs of the project. For tailoring considerations, see the tailoring section of the artifacts' description page, or the steps described under the heading "Tailor Artifacts per Discipline" in the Activity: Develop Development Case.

Decide How to Review Artifacts

This section gives some guidelines to help you decide how you should review the test artifacts. For general guidance, see Guidelines: Review Levels.

Defects

The treatment of Defect reviews is very much dependent on context, however they are generally treated as Informal, Formal-Internal, or Formal-External. This review process is often enforced or at least assisted by workflow management in a defect-tracking system. As a general comment, the level of review formality often relates to the perceived severity or impact of the defect, however factors such as project culture and level of ceremony often have an effect on the choice of review handling.

In some cases you may need to consider separating the handling of defects-also known as symptoms or failures-from faults; the actual source of the error. For small projects, you can typically manage by tracking only the defects and implicitly handle the faults. However, as the system grows in complexity, it may be beneficial to separate the management of defects from faults. For example, several defects may be caused by the same fault. Therefore, if a fault is fixed, it's necessary to find the reported defects and inform those users who submitted the defects, which is only possible if defects and faults can be identified separately.

Test Plan and Test Strategy

In any project where the testing is nontrivial, you will need some form of Test Plan or Strategy. Generally you'll need a Test Plan for each iteration and some form of governing Test Strategy. Optionally you might create and maintain a Master Test Plan. In many cases, these artifacts are reviewed as Informal; that is, they are reviewed, but not formally approved. Where testing visibility has importance to stakeholders external to the test team, it should be treated as Formal-Internal or even Formal-External.

Test Scripts

Test Scripts are usually treated as Informal; that is, they are approved by someone within the test team. If the Test Scripts are to be used by many testers, and shared or reused for many different tests, they should be treated as Formal-Internal.

Test Cases

Test Cases are created by the test team and-depending on context-are typically reviewed using either an Informal process or simply not reviewed as all. Where appropriate, Test Cases might be approved by other team members in which case they can be treated as Formal-Internal, or by external stakeholders in which case they would be Formal-External.

As a general heuristic, we recommend you only plan to formally review what test cases it is necessary to, which generally will be limited to a small subset representing the most significant test cases. For example, where a customer wants to validate a product before it is released, some subset of the Test Cases could be selected as the basis for that validation. These Test Cases should be treated as Formal-External.

Test artifacts in design and implementation

Testability Classes are found in the Design Model, and Testability Elements in the Implementation Model. There are also two other related (although not specific to test) artifacts: Packages in the Design Model, and Subsystems in the Implementation Model.

These artifacts are design and implementation artifacts, however, they're created for the purpose of supporting testing functionality in the software. The natural place to keep them is with the design and implementation artifacts. Remember to name or otherwise label them in such a way that they are clearly separated from the design and implementation of the core system. Review these artifacts by following the review procedures for Design and Implementation artifacts.

Decide on Iteration Approval Criteria

As you enter each iteration, strive to clearly define upfront how the test effort will be judged to have been sufficient, and on what basis that judgment will be measured. Do this by discussion with the individual or group responsible for making the approval decision.

This is an important decision-you cannot reach a goal if you don't know what it is.