Acceptance Tests and Outcomes
UAT Scenarios from Business Requirements Document
User testing should be based on the requirements identified in the Jira log items and the PDF meeting note.
Requirement from Jira/PDF meeting | Test Scenario / Acceptance Criteria | Date Released for Testing | Tested By | Date Tested | Outcome (PASS / FAIL) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Angela Noble's access to Infinite is slow, therefore investigation is needed. Could potentially be related to javascript and account code access. |
|
|
|
| ||
The text in section 'Shortfall in salary funding' needs to be changed to say: 'Charging for shortfall in salary funding' |
| 11/09/12 |
|
|
| |
On budget setup screen, the format of the amount in the box “Sponsor contr.(so far)” needs to be the same format as the other amounts on the page. |
| 11/09/12 |
|
|
| |
We have come across an inconsistency on the system relating to PI's with a zero value. Originally we had thought that there was no way around having a PI with a zero value on a project; we were just working around this. But Andy recently managed to get an award through with no mention of the PI on the Staff Breakdown page, while maintaining the PI details on the Overview (which is the most desired scenario for us). I have since tried many ways to replicate this, but cannot seem to at all, so wondered if you could have a look at the back end and find out what is going on. The record that Andy managed to do this on was 023090 (see attached), and the most recent record I have tried to replicate is 025918 (see attached). These are, from what I can see, identical on InfoEd (in configuration terms), yet INFINITE handles them differently. Would you be able to identify the differences between these, please? I presume there must be some sort of difference, but cannot seem to find what. So, for clarity, we would prefer INFINITE to handle all records like 023090, thus avoiding zero value PI's. |
|
|
|
| ||
We have just realised that INFINITE will display related proposals as a hyperlink, even if they do not exist on the system. Please see the attached screen shot; this shows the record 020971 with two related proposals (as it has in InfoEd). But, as only one of these records are actually on INFINITE (green circle) the other does not work and just displays an error. This is a little misleading and may cause confusion for the school admins. Would it be possible to either only show related proposals that actually appear in INFINITE, or could we perhaps make it so that only valid INFINITE records show as a link, where others are just plain text? |
| 11/09/12 |
|
|
| |
156.2 | A user should be able to select a linked proposals held in different Colleges, and view(-only) their details. | 11/09/12 | ||||
156.3 | Viewing a Proposal should load it into a pop-up window, allowing the User to continue working on the current Proposal in the background. Note: Pop-up window functionality in Firefox does not support the scroll-bar, so users must use up/down arrows or Page Up/Down to navigate. An alternative solution would have been to provide the view of the related proposal in a separate tab, which would support the scroll-bar. | 11/09/12 | ||||
A change to the workflow process has been requested: Susan's comment about workflow process: "When I go to pass on an application to the next stage or reject, the list that has the options for sending has duplicate emails for some staff, can we look at removing these? Is there no way that we can restrict the list of optional emails to those people that are linked to the school? I expect not, but it is a huge list, the first PI I sent this to commented on it." Request from ERI: Hide the secondary list and replace it with a text box that will only show a list of names if/when the user enters a name and clicks 'show'. |
| 11/09/12 |
|
|
| |
Currently when a proposal moves to another stage, the text says: "INFINITE - there is a proposal has just moved through the workflow:” Change this to say: "INFINITE - a proposal has just moved through the workflow:” |
| 11/09/12 |
|
|
| |
(5.1) | Indirect Cost Split: In the application, where the 14% rule applies, the 14% message should be visible at all times. |
| 11/09/12 |
|
|
|
(2) | PDF: Cost Centre on top row of page 1: This field is not currently populated, because a single Proposal may have multiple Cost Centres. Populate this field with the Cost Centre that appears most frequently on the Proposal. (Changed on 10/09, with Craig's approval, from 1st appearing CC.) |
|
|
|
| |
(3) | PDF: Remove “Destination Cost Centre” (column 4) from all tables on pages 1 to 3 of the PDF sample. |
|
|
|
| |
(4) | PDF: Ref Data: Remove the School and College columns. Increase the table to allow for 10 rows of data. Add a total, to sum all values in the “%” column. (The sum must add up to 100%.) |
|
|
|
| |
(5.2) | PDF: Indirect Cost Split: The 14% message, where applicable, should be displayed. | |||||
(5.2) | Note: This requirement is more complex than had been anticipated. Work on this item therefore falls outwith the estimate. It was agreed in the 30th August meeting that development on this item should be held till last. PDF: Indirect Cost Split: Instead of the table currently showing on the PDF template, the following should display:
|
|
|
|
| |
6 | Note: Development effort on this item has been delayed, since its source data isn't in the system. ERI to provide spec for calculation. PDF: Staff Details table: Susan requires two columns: Months FTE and % Effort. These should operate as follows: a) If a person works full-time for 6.5 months of a 13-month project, then
b) If a person works half-time for the entire 13 months of the same project, then
Craig investigated this request and reported the following issue: … the only way to obtain this data is to do a calculation on the start and end date fields (AWD_BUDGET_SUMMARY.ITEMSTARTDATE & AWD_BUDGET_SUMMARY.ITEMENDDATE) Both these pieces of information can be obtained from the start/end dates and the number of hours. (The percentage figure that is supplied on the paper finance packs is a manual calculation based on these pieces of information.) Note that even if this is possible, it would only supply the percentage based on a full time member of staff, as we do not have information on staff contract hours etc. ERI to supply the formula for the calculation. |
|
|
|
| |
(7) | PDF: Payment Schedule section: Take all items for this section directly from the application’s Payment Schedule form. |
|
|
|
|
Jira / Mtg Ref | Notes on Test and/or Test Outcome |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other UAT Scenarios
Additional test scenarios used in testing but not sourced from the Jira log items and the PDF meeting note should be identified here. The justification for including the scenario in the UAT must also be recorded.
Ref | Additional Requirement | Test Scenario and Acceptance Criteria | Tested By | Date Tested | Outcome (PASS / FAIL) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ref | Notes on Test and/or Test Outcome |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open Issues
Any issues identified during UAT must be added to the Test Log. Please summarise or insert a copy of any open issues from the JIRA Test Log. It may be agreed that UAT can be signed off while some issues remain open please provide details of the UAT impact of each open issue.
JIRA Test Log Ref | Issue Summary | Impact on UAT Sign Off | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Link to updated JIRA Test Log
Document Sign Off
Please add other signatories where required
Project Manager | Name | Date Signed Off |
Project Sponsor | Name | Date Signed Off |
Business Assurance Coordinator | Name | Date Signed Off |
Business Analyst | Name | Date Signed Off |
Add other signatories here |
|
|