LF-3363 Test Plan

Requirement specific constraints

• Testing per Jira ticket

• As someone who is completing a repeating crop plan I want to be able to access that information at a later time

• Ensure that the deleted tasks are not cloned

• All validation described in LF-3362 - Getting issue details... STATUS must be enforced at the API as well

• Ensure that in the database all the information is stored correctly

Role based constraints

• Farm workers cannot POST crop plans

N/A

N/A

Does role determine what a user can see or do? Is this enforced uniformly across the front end and back end?

User preferences constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Is this impacted by user or farm preferences such as language, system of measure, certification status?

Numerical input constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Do we appropriately handle negative, very small, very large, or 0 as inputs?

Text input constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Do we appropriately handle blank, very small, and very large inputs? Is there a strict format (such as email) that must be followed?

Date based constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Are there logical restrictions on what dates can be input? Should a use be able to complete something in the future for example.

Date based assumptions

N/A

N/A

N/A

Are we making valid assumptions about what dates should be allowed?

Timezone driven interactions

N/A

N/A

N/A

If timezones play a role in the data, are they being displayed or converted appropriately?

Interaction / transitioning UI based constraints

UI:

None; back-end story

N/A

N/A

Is the UI transitioning appropriately? Is the API providing da

Flow based constraints

The user calls this functionality by…

• Clicking “Save” button if they have set a repeating schedule.

• Clicking “Confirm” button

For each crop plan created this way will:

• All values from the repeated plan should be maintained as is, with the exception of:

  • Dates, which should be recalculated using the existing offset and the new beginning date

  • Fields related to the completion or abandonment of the crop plan should be nulled out

For each task created this way:

• All values from the cloned tasks should be maintained as is, with the exception of:

  • Dates, which should be recalculated using the existing offset (from the completed_date if present, otherwise using due_date) and the new beginning date specified for the crop plan

  • Fields related to the completion or abandonment of the task should be nulled out

  • Assignee should be “Unassigned” unless there’s only 1 user at the farm

N/A

N/A

Is state being preserved appropriately in a flow? If I go back and then forth, is it maintained? Is state invalidated when it should be?

Synchronous / asynchronous constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Is the interaction synchronous, asynchronous, or does it support both? Can you simulate both if so?

Time-out / low bandwidth constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Does the feature fail gracefully under no bandwidth / low bandwidth environments?

Data transformation correctness

N/A

N/A

N/A

Are values appropriately updated when units change? Is it WYSIWYG?

Outcome correctness

N/A

N/A

N/A

When inputting known inputs with expected outputs - do you get the results you expect? Have you tested several “cases” of this?

Switching farms

N/A

N/A

N/A

Does this feature respond well to switching farms (and returning)?

Notification constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Should a notification be marshalled based on this action?

Cascading effects

N/A

N/A

N/A

Are there logical places

Integration constrains

N/A

N/A

N/A

Do we need to ensure state is consistent between LiteFarm and the external service? What failure cases do we need to handle? How do we report back the outcome to the user or external service?

Concurrency

N/A

N/A

N/A

How do changes made to records affect other users on the farm? e.g. What happens when a record is soft deleted while another user is viewing said record?