LF-2938 Test plan

Requirement specific constraints

N/A

N/A

N/A

Role based constraints

FW should not see this interaction

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

All copy is in the user’s preferred language

N/A

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

Farm-level defaults / preferences

N/A

N/A

N/A

Numerical input constraints

Wage value must be a decimal >= 0 AND < 999,999,999

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

• If “Yes” option is selected, display a “Set hourly wage” input value

• If “No” option is selected, hide the “Set hourly wage” input value

• Only display the above UI AFTER a user without a wage AND who has not had “Don’t ask again” set is chosen

• If an assignee with a wage OR who has had “Don’t ask again” set is chosen, hide described UI

• If the assignee has a wage described UI must remain hidden

• Click “Save” (once enabled) to:

  • PATCH this task with the new assignee

    • Endpoint must verify appropriate permission to modify assignee

  • If “Yes, set hourly wage” is selected and a new hourly wage was provided, PATCH the userFarm with the new wage

    • Endpoint must verify appropriate permission to modify userFarm

  • If “Yes, just for this task” is selected and a new hourly wage was provided, PATCH wage_at_moment on the task only

    • Endpoint must verify appropriate permission to modify userFarm

  • If “No, don’t ask again” was selected, PATCH the userFarm with the “Don’t ask again” property

    • Endpoint must verify appropriate permission to modify userFarm

Database is updated appropriately:

• Hourly wage set for assignee if a new hourly wage is set

• wage_at_moment updated if task wage is updated

• If “No, don’t ask again” was updated, “Don’t ask again” property is set to true

Is the UI transitioning appropriately? Is the API providing da

Flow based constraints

• If “Don’t ask again” is set for a particular assignee hide described UI

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 constrains

N/A

N/A

N/A

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

Data transformation correctness

Is the data persisted as expected post-transformation?

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

Outcome correctness

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

Switching farms

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

Notification constraints

Should a notification be marshalled based on this action?

Cascading effects

Are there logical places

Integration constrains

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?