Individual & Bulk messaging Test Cases - UX02US02

Test Case 1: Individual Message Tab Display and Navigation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_001
Title: Verify Individual Message tab is displayed and accessible in messaging interface
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer/Billing/Meter Services, UI, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Smoke-Test-Results/User-Acceptance/Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Low, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-CommunicationHub, NavigationValidation, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (CSO Manager, Call Center Rep, Utility Admin, Billing Manager, Meter Manager)
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Low
Complexity_Level: Low
Expected_Execution_Time: 2 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: None
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of tab navigation functionality
Integration_Points: Communication Hub platform, User authentication service
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Smoke-Test-Results
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #1 - System must provide "Individual Message" tab in messaging interface
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_002 (Channel Selection)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Communication Hub platform, SMART360 authentication, User session management
Performance_Baseline: Page load < 3 seconds
Data_Requirements: Valid user credentials for utility staff roles

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: User logged into UtilityConnect platform with messaging permissions
User_Roles_Permissions: Any authorized messaging user (CSO Manager, Call Center Rep, etc.)
Test_Data: Valid user session: USR-001 (CSO Manager credentials)
Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Communication Hub from main menu	Communication Hub page loads successfully with breadcrumb "Home > Communication Hub"	USR-001 session	Verify navigation path matches UI wireframe
2	Click on "Messaging" option in Communication Hub	Messaging page loads with title "Messaging" and subtitle "Send messages to individual or multiple recipients across various communication channels"	N/A	Reference AC #1 - Individual tab must be present
3	Observe messaging interface tabs	Two tabs visible: "Individual" and "Bulk" with "Individual" tab selected by default	N/A	Tab styling should indicate active state with blue highlight
4	Verify Individual tab content loads	Individual messaging form appears with text "Send a message to an individual recipient through your preferred channel"	N/A	Content matches wireframe specification
5	Click on Individual tab (if not already selected)	Individual tab remains active, no page reload occurs	N/A	Tab selection persistence validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Individual Message tab is visible, accessible, and selected by default
Secondary_Verifications: Proper tab styling, content loading, breadcrumb navigation
Negative_Verification: No broken UI elements, missing tabs, or navigation errors

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Daily
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: User authentication test
Blocked_Tests: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other navigation tests
Sequential_Tests: Must precede all individual messaging tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical foundational test for all individual messaging functionality
Edge_Cases: Browser refresh, back button navigation, direct URL access
Risk_Areas: Tab switching functionality, session timeout during navigation
Security_Considerations: User session validation, role-based access verification

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Direct URL access to messaging page
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users may bookmark or directly access messaging URL
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Tab accessibility validation for screen readers
Type: Accessibility
Rationale: Compliance requirement for utility company accessibility standards
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 2: Communication Channel Selection Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_002
Title: Verify communication channel selection is required before sending individual message
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer/Billing/Meter Services, Validation, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Regression-Coverage/API-Test-Results/Engineering/Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-ChannelValidation, ValidationTesting, FieldValidation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff roles
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 3 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of channel selection validation
Integration_Points: Channel validation service, Form validation engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #2 - System must require selection of communication channel before sending individual message
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001 (prerequisite), UX02US02_TC_007 (related validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Communication Hub platform, Channel validation service, Form validation engine
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 500ms
Data_Requirements: Sample message content for validation testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging tab active and loaded
User_Roles_Permissions: Any authorized messaging user with send permissions
Test_Data: USR-001 session, Sample message: MSG-001 content
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Individual Message tab	Individual messaging interface displays with Channel dropdown showing "Choose Channel Type" placeholder	USR-001 session	Reference AC #2 - channel selection required
2	Verify Channel dropdown default state	Dropdown shows placeholder "Choose Channel Type" with red asterisk indicating required field	N/A	Required field visual indicator validation
3	Leave Channel dropdown unselected	Channel field remains at default placeholder value "Choose Channel Type"	N/A	Simulate user attempting to skip channel selection
4	Enter valid message content in Message field	Message content appears in text area field	"Test message for channel validation - MSG-001"	Valid message content from sample data
5	Click "Send Message" button without selecting channel	Error message appears: "Please select a communication channel before sending" and message is not sent	N/A	Primary validation point - prevents sending without channel
6	Verify error message styling and placement	Error message displays in red text above or near Channel dropdown with clear visibility	N/A	Error visibility and user experience validation
7	Verify form state preservation	Message content remains in text field after validation error	MSG-001 content retained	Form data should not be lost on validation
8	Select "Email" from Channel dropdown	Channel selected, error message disappears, additional email-specific fields appear	Channel: Email	Verify error clearing and UI state change

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Message cannot be sent without channel selection, appropriate error message displayed
Secondary_Verifications: Error message clarity, form state preservation, error clearing on field completion
Negative_Verification: No message delivery occurs without channel selection, no false success indicators

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001
Blocked_Tests: Channel-specific validation tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Must precede channel-specific tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation test preventing incomplete message submissions
Edge_Cases: Rapid clicking, browser back during validation, JavaScript disabled
Risk_Areas: Form validation engine failure, error message display issues
Security_Considerations: Prevent unauthorized message sending, input validation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: JavaScript disabled browser validation fallback
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Server-side validation must work when client-side fails
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Channel selection during message composition auto-save
Type: Integration
Rationale: Draft functionality interaction with validation rules
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 3: Email Channel Subject Line Field Requirements

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_003
Title: Verify subject field appears and is required when email channel is selected for individual messages
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer/Billing Services, Email, UI, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Regression-Coverage/User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-EmailService, ChannelSpecificUI, FieldValidation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring email communication
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of email channel subject line functionality
Integration_Points: Email service integration, Channel-specific UI rendering
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Regression-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #3 - System must provide field for entering subject when selected channel is email
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_002 (prerequisite), UX02US02_TC_006 (subject validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+, Safari 16+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Email service integration, Dynamic UI rendering, Channel validation service
Performance_Baseline: UI update < 300ms after channel selection
Data_Requirements: Valid email addresses from sample data, subject line samples

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging interface loaded with channel selection available
User_Roles_Permissions: Email messaging permissions for user role
Test_Data: Email recipient: consumer1@gmail.com, Subject: "Upcoming Maintenance in Your Area" (from sample data)
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001 and UX02US02_TC_002 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Individual Message tab and verify initial state	Individual messaging form loads with Channel dropdown at default "Choose Channel Type"	USR-001 session	Baseline state verification
2	Click Channel dropdown and select "Email" option	Dropdown shows available options: Email, Text, WhatsApp, Notification. Select "Email"	Channel: Email	Reference wireframe showing channel options
3	Verify UI changes after email selection	Email-specific fields appear: recipient email input field with label "Recipient Email" and subject field with label "Subject"	N/A	AC #3 - subject field must appear for email
4	Verify subject field properties	Subject field is visible, enabled, and shows required field indicator (red asterisk)	N/A	Required field validation preparation
5	Enter valid email address in recipient field	Email address accepted and properly formatted in field	consumer1@gmail.com	Valid email from sample data
6	Enter subject line content	Subject text appears in subject field without formatting issues	"Upcoming Maintenance in Your Area"	Sample subject from user story
7	Verify subject field character limit (if any)	Field accepts reasonable subject length without truncation	Extended subject text (up to 200 characters)	Email subject best practices
8	Enter message content in message body	Message content appears properly in text area	"Dear Customer, This is to confirm your service appointment..."	Sample message content
9	Click Send Message with all fields completed	Message sending process initiates successfully with confirmation	Complete email MSG-002	Successful completion validation
10	Verify message delivery confirmation	Success message appears: "Message delivered" as shown in UI specification	N/A	Reference AC #9 - delivery confirmation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Subject field appears when email channel is selected and is properly configured as required field
Secondary_Verifications: Email format validation, proper field labeling, UI responsiveness, successful email sending
Negative_Verification: Subject field not visible for non-email channels, cannot send email without subject

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002
Blocked_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006 (Subject validation)
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other channel-specific tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede subject validation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for email communication functionality in utility customer service
Edge_Cases: Very long subject lines, special characters, HTML in subject, copy-paste operations
Risk_Areas: Dynamic UI rendering, email service integration, subject field validation
Security_Considerations: HTML injection prevention, email header validation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Subject line with special utility characters (meter symbols, currency)
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Utility communications often include technical symbols
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Subject line auto-population from message templates
Type: Integration
Rationale: Template functionality integration with subject field
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 4: SMS and WhatsApp Mobile Number Field Display

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_004
Title: Verify mobile number field appears and is properly configured when SMS or WhatsApp channel is selected
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, SMS, WhatsApp, UI, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Mobile-Compatibility/User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-SMSService, MobileNumberValidation, ChannelSpecificUI

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring SMS/WhatsApp communication
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of SMS/WhatsApp mobile number field functionality
Integration_Points: SMS service, WhatsApp Business API, Mobile number validation service
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Mobile-Compatibility
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #4 - System must show mobile number tab for both SMS and WhatsApp
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_002 (prerequisite), UX02US02_TC_007 (mobile number validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080, Tablet-1024x768
Dependencies: SMS service integration, WhatsApp Business API, Mobile number validation service
Performance_Baseline: Channel switching < 300ms
Data_Requirements: Valid mobile numbers from utility service areas

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging interface with channel selection functionality
User_Roles_Permissions: SMS/WhatsApp messaging permissions for user role
Test_Data: Mobile numbers: +1-555-123-4567, +1-555-987-6543 (from sample format), USR-002 (Call Center Rep)
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Individual Message tab with clean form state	Individual messaging interface displays with empty Channel dropdown	USR-002 session	Call Center Rep testing SMS/WhatsApp access
2	Click Channel dropdown and observe available options	Dropdown displays: Email, Text, WhatsApp, Notification options clearly labeled	N/A	Verify SMS appears as "Text" option per wireframe
3	Select "Text" (SMS) from Channel dropdown	Channel updates to "Text", mobile number input field appears with label "Mobile Number"	Channel: Text/SMS	AC #4 - mobile number field for SMS
4	Verify mobile number field properties	Field accepts numeric input, shows country code placeholder (+1), has required field indicator	N/A	Mobile number formatting validation setup
5	Enter valid mobile number for SMS	Number accepted and formatted correctly with country code	+1-555-123-4567	Sample mobile number format
6	Change channel selection to "WhatsApp"	Channel updates to WhatsApp, mobile number field remains visible with same formatting	Channel: WhatsApp	AC #4 - same field for both SMS/WhatsApp
7	Verify mobile number data persistence	Previously entered mobile number retained when switching between SMS and WhatsApp	+1-555-123-4567 maintained	Data persistence validation
8	Test mobile number field with different valid formats	Field accepts various valid formats and normalizes them	+1 555 987 6543, (555) 987-6543	Format flexibility testing
9	Enter message content for mobile channel	Message appears in text area with character count if applicable	"IMPORTANT: Scheduled maintenance in your area today 2-5 PM"	SMS-appropriate message content
10	Switch back to Email channel	Email-specific fields (recipient email, subject) appear, mobile number field hidden	Channel: Email	Channel switching validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Mobile number field appears for SMS and WhatsApp channels with proper formatting and validation
Secondary_Verifications: Data persistence across channel changes, proper field labeling, format acceptance
Negative_Verification: Mobile number field not visible for email/notification channels

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002
Blocked_Tests: Mobile number validation tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with email channel tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede mobile number validation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for utility emergency notifications and customer service follow-ups
Edge_Cases: International numbers, invalid formats, very long numbers, special characters
Risk_Areas: Mobile number validation service, SMS/WhatsApp API integration, format normalization
Security_Considerations: Mobile number privacy, validation to prevent SMS bombing

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: International mobile number format support
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Utility companies may serve international customers or contractors
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Mobile number validation with carrier lookup
Type: Integration
Rationale: Verify number is active and can receive SMS/WhatsApp
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 5: Message Content Field Validation and Requirements

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_005
Title: Verify message content field validation prevents empty message submission and handles content properly
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer/Billing Services, Validation, Content, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Engineering/Regression-Coverage/API-Test-Results/Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-ContentValidation, MessageValidation, RequiredFieldValidation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff roles sending customer communications
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of message content validation functionality
Integration_Points: Content validation engine, Message processing service
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Regression-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #5 - System must validate that message content field is not empty before sending
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_019 (comprehensive field validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+, Edge 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Content validation service, Message processing engine, Form validation framework
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 200ms
Data_Requirements: Sample message content from user story, various content lengths

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging interface loaded with all form fields accessible
User_Roles_Permissions: Message sending permissions for testing user
Test_Data: USR-003 (Billing Manager), Email: billing_manager@waterdistrict.org, Valid message samples
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Individual Message tab and select Email channel	Email channel interface loads with recipient, subject, and message fields visible	USR-003 session, Channel: Email	Setup for content validation testing
2	Enter valid recipient email address	Email address accepted and displayed correctly in recipient field	billing_manager@waterdistrict.org	Valid recipient from sample data
3	Enter valid subject line	Subject text appears correctly in subject field	"Your April 2025 Billing Statement"	Sample subject from user story
4	Leave message content field completely empty	Message field remains empty with placeholder text "Type your message here..."	N/A	AC #5 - empty content validation setup
5	Click "Send Message" button with empty content	Error message appears indicating message content is required, sending is prevented	N/A	Primary validation point - empty content rejection
6	Verify error message content and placement	Clear error message displays: "Message content is required" near message field with red styling	N/A	Error visibility and clarity validation
7	Verify form state preservation after error	Email address and subject line remain populated, cursor focuses on message field	Previous data retained	Form usability validation
8	Enter only whitespace characters in message field	Field appears to have content but contains only spaces/tabs/newlines	" \t\n " (whitespace only)	Whitespace-only content edge case
9	Attempt to send message with whitespace-only content	Error message appears: "Please enter valid message content" and sending is prevented	N/A	Whitespace validation - should be rejected
10	Enter valid message content	Message text appears properly in field without validation errors	"This is a friendly reminder that your utility payment of $127.35 is due on April 25, 2025."	Sample payment reminder message
11	Send message with all valid fields completed	Message sending initiates successfully, confirmation message appears	Complete MSG-003 data	Successful validation resolution
12	Verify message delivery confirmation	Success confirmation displays: "Message delivered" as specified in UI	N/A	Reference AC #9 for confirmation display

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Empty or whitespace-only message content prevents sending with appropriate error messages
Secondary_Verifications: Error message clarity, form data preservation, successful sending after correction
Negative_Verification: No message delivery with empty content, no false success indicators

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003
Blocked_Tests: Message sending workflow tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede successful message sending tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation preventing empty communications to customers
Edge_Cases: Very long message content, special characters, HTML content, copy-paste operations
Risk_Areas: Content validation service failure, message processing errors
Security_Considerations: Content sanitization, injection prevention, message length limits

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Message content with utility-specific formatting (meter readings, account numbers)
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Utility messages often contain structured data and technical information
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Auto-save draft functionality during message composition
Type: Integration
Rationale: Prevent content loss during long message composition sessions
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 6: Bulk Messaging Tab Interface and Navigation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_006
Title: Verify Bulk Messaging tab is displayed and provides appropriate interface for multiple recipient messaging
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer/Billing Services, BulkMessaging, UI, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Smoke-Test-Results/User-Acceptance/Product, Customer-All, Risk-Low, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-BulkMessagingService, TabNavigation, BulkInterface

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring bulk communication capabilities
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Low
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 3 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: None
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of bulk messaging tab and interface functionality
Integration_Points: Bulk messaging service, Recipient list management, UI rendering engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Smoke-Test-Results
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #12 - System must provide "Bulk Messaging" tab in messaging interface
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001 (tab navigation), UX02US02_TC_007 (audience selection)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Bulk messaging service, Recipient list service, Communication Hub platform
Performance_Baseline: Tab switching < 500ms, interface loading < 2 seconds
Data_Requirements: Access to recipient lists, bulk messaging permissions

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Messaging interface loaded with both Individual and Bulk tabs available
User_Roles_Permissions: Bulk messaging permissions (Utility Admin, CSO Manager roles)
Test_Data: USR-004 (Utility Administrator), Access to predefined recipient lists
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001 must pass for tab navigation baseline

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Messaging section from Communication Hub	Messaging page loads with both "Individual" and "Bulk" tabs visible	USR-004 session	Utility Admin testing bulk access
2	Verify bulk tab visibility and accessibility	"Bulk" tab is clearly visible, labeled, and clickable alongside Individual tab	N/A	AC #12 - Bulk tab presence validation
3	Click on "Bulk" tab	Tab switches to bulk messaging interface with text "Send messages to multiple recipients by uploading a file or selecting a predefined list"	N/A	Interface content matches wireframe specification
4	Verify bulk messaging interface sections	Interface displays distinct sections: "Recipient Selection", "Message Configuration", "Delivery Options"	N/A	Section organization per wireframe design
5	Examine Recipient Selection section	Shows "Audience Type" dropdown and "Recipient List" dropdown with appropriate labels and required indicators	N/A	AC #13, #14 - audience and list selection setup
6	Verify Audience Type dropdown content	Dropdown shows "Choose Audience Type" placeholder with available options when clicked	N/A	Options should include Consumers, Technicians, Business
7	Examine Message Configuration section	Shows "Channel Type" dropdown and message composition area with format options	N/A	Channel selection similar to individual messaging
8	Verify Delivery Options section	Shows scheduling options including "Schedule for later" checkbox	N/A	Scheduling functionality for bulk messages
9	Check for bulk-specific features	Interface includes estimated delivery time display area and "Save as Draft" button	N/A	AC #18 - delivery estimation, draft functionality
10	Switch back to Individual tab	Individual messaging interface loads without issues	N/A	Tab switching persistence validation
11	Return to Bulk tab	Bulk interface reloads properly maintaining previous state if any	N/A	Interface state management validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Bulk Messaging tab is accessible and displays appropriate bulk messaging interface
Secondary_Verifications: Interface section organization, field labeling, bulk-specific features visibility
Negative_Verification: No missing interface elements, broken layouts, or navigation issues

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Daily
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001
Blocked_Tests: All bulk messaging functionality tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with individual messaging tab tests
Sequential_Tests: Must precede all bulk messaging feature tests

Additional Information

Notes: Foundation test for all bulk messaging capabilities
Edge_Cases: Browser refresh on bulk tab, direct URL access to bulk messaging
Risk_Areas: Tab state management, bulk interface rendering, permission validation
Security_Considerations: Role-based access to bulk messaging features

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Bulk messaging tab accessibility with restricted user permissions
Type: Security
Rationale: Verify proper access control for bulk messaging capabilities
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Bulk interface loading with large recipient lists
Type: Performance
Rationale: Interface responsiveness with heavy data loads
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 7: Audience Type Selection for Bulk Message Segmentation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_007
Title: Verify audience type selection functionality for bulk message recipient segmentation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer/Billing/Business Services, Segmentation, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Engineering/Module-Coverage/Regression-Coverage/Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-Segmented, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-RecipientSegmentation, AudienceManagement, BulkMessaging

Business Context

Customer_Segment: Utility staff managing different customer types (Consumers, Technicians, Business)
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of audience type selection and segmentation functionality
Integration_Points: Recipient segmentation service, Customer database, List management system
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/Product
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Customer-Segment-Analysis, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #13 - System must support audience type selection (Consumers, Technicians, Business users) for segmentation
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006 (prerequisite), UX02US02_TC_008 (recipient list selection)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Recipient segmentation service, Customer database integration, List management API
Performance_Baseline: Dropdown loading < 1 second, selection response < 300ms
Data_Requirements: Access to all audience type categories, sample recipient counts

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface loaded with recipient selection section visible
User_Roles_Permissions: Bulk messaging permissions with access to all audience types
Test_Data: USR-005 (CSO Manager), Access to Consumers/Technicians/Business user segments
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Bulk Messaging tab	Bulk messaging interface loads with Recipient Selection section visible	USR-005 session	CSO Manager testing full audience access
2	Locate Audience Type dropdown in Recipient Selection	Dropdown labeled "Audience Type" with red asterisk (required) and "Choose Audience Type" placeholder	N/A	AC #13 - audience type selection required
3	Click Audience Type dropdown	Dropdown expands showing available options: "Consumers", "Technicians", "Business Users"	N/A	Three audience types from user story
4	Select "Consumers" from dropdown	"Consumers" selected and displayed in dropdown, Recipient List dropdown becomes enabled	Audience: Consumers	Verify dependent field enabling
5	Verify Recipient List dropdown activation	Recipient List dropdown changes from disabled to enabled state with "Select a list" placeholder	N/A	List selection depends on audience type
6	Change selection to "Technicians"	"Technicians" selected, recipient list dropdown updates to show technician-related lists	Audience: Technicians	Audience-specific list filtering
7	Verify selection persistence	"Technicians" remains selected when clicking elsewhere or interacting with other fields	N/A	Selection state management
8	Change selection to "Business Users"	"Business Users" selected, interface updates appropriately for business communications	Audience: Business Users	Business segment validation
9	Test audience type deselection	Click dropdown and reselect placeholder option if possible	Reset to "Choose Audience Type"	Test validation of required field
10	Attempt to proceed without audience selection	Verify that subsequent bulk messaging steps require audience type selection	N/A	Required field enforcement
11	Select final audience type for continuation	Choose "Consumers" for subsequent testing steps	Audience: Consumers	Setup for recipient list testing

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Audience type can be selected and affects available recipient lists appropriately
Secondary_Verifications: Dropdown functionality, dependent field enabling, selection persistence
Negative_Verification: Cannot proceed without audience type selection, proper validation enforcement

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006
Blocked_Tests: UX02US02_TC_008 (recipient list selection)
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other bulk messaging setup tests
Sequential_Tests: Must precede recipient list selection tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for proper customer segmentation in utility communications
Edge_Cases: Very large audience segments, empty audience types, permission-restricted audiences
Risk_Areas: Audience segmentation service, customer database integration, list filtering
Security_Considerations: Audience access permissions, data privacy for different customer types

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Role-based audience type restrictions
Type: Security
Rationale: Different user roles may have access to different audience segments
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Audience type with no available recipient lists
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Handle scenarios where selected audience has no configured lists
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 8: Recipient List Selection with Count Display

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_008
Title: Verify recipient list selection displays list names with recipient counts and integrates with Lists page
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Lists, Integration, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Integration-Testing/Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-Segmented, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ListsPage, RecipientManagement, CountDisplay

Business Context

Customer_Segment: Utility staff managing predefined customer groups and service areas
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of recipient list selection and count display functionality
Integration_Points: Lists page integration, Recipient count service, List management API
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/Engineering
Report_Categories: Integration-Testing, Customer-Segment-Analysis, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #14 - Allow users to select from predefined recipient lists, AC #15 - Support recipient lists from Lists page, AC #16 - Display estimated number of recipients
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_007 (prerequisite), UX02US02_TC_009 (message personalization)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Lists page service, Recipient count API, List management system, Database integration
Performance_Baseline: List loading < 2 seconds, count calculation < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Predefined recipient lists with various sizes, Lists page integration data

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with audience type "Consumers" selected
User_Roles_Permissions: Access to predefined recipient lists and Lists page integration
Test_Data: USR-006 (Meter Manager), Predefined lists: LST-001 "Service Area North", LST-002 "Billing Zone East"
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete audience type selection as "Consumers"	Audience type selected, Recipient List dropdown enabled and ready for selection	Audience: Consumers, USR-006 session	Meter Manager testing service area lists
2	Click Recipient List dropdown	Dropdown expands showing available predefined lists with format "List Name (X recipients)"	N/A	AC #16 - recipient count display requirement
3	Verify list display format and content	Lists show proper naming: "Service Area North (250 recipients)", "Billing Zone East (180 recipients)"	LST-001, LST-002 sample lists	Count display validation from Lists page
4	Select "Service Area North (250 recipients)"	List selected, dropdown shows selected value, recipient count visible in interface	LST-001 selection	AC #14 - predefined list selection
5	Verify recipient count display in bulk interface	Interface shows selected list information including total recipient count: "250 recipients selected"	Count: 250	Count integration validation
6	Change to different list "Billing Zone East (180 recipients)"	New list selected, count updates to reflect new selection: "180 recipients selected"	LST-002 selection	List switching and count update
7	Verify list data integration with Lists page	Selected list data matches information from Lists management page	Cross-reference Lists page	AC #15 - Lists page integration
8	Test with larger recipient list if available	Select list with 500+ recipients, verify count display and performance	LST-003 "All Consumers (750 recipients)"	Large list handling
9	Verify empty or small lists handling	Select smaller list, verify appropriate count display	LST-004 "Test Group (5 recipients)"	Edge case validation
10	Check list selection persistence	Navigate to other sections and return, verify list selection maintained	Return to Recipient Selection	Selection state management
11	Verify estimated delivery time updates	Delivery options section shows updated estimation based on recipient count	Check "Within 15 minutes" display	AC #18 - delivery estimation connection

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Recipient lists display with accurate counts and integrate properly with Lists page data
Secondary_Verifications: Count accuracy, list selection persistence, delivery estimation updates
Negative_Verification: No incorrect counts, no missing lists, no integration failures

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: High
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007
Blocked_Tests: Message personalization and delivery tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other integration tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede bulk message composition tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical integration test for Lists page functionality and accurate recipient management
Edge_Cases: Very large lists (1000+ recipients), empty lists, lists with inactive recipients
Risk_Areas: Lists page integration, count calculation accuracy, performance with large lists
Security_Considerations: List access permissions, recipient data privacy

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Real-time list count updates when Lists page is modified
Type: Integration
Rationale: Counts should reflect current list state if modified during message composition
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: List selection with recipients from multiple service territories
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Complex utility service area management scenarios
Priority: P2
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Daily
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: User authentication test
Blocked_Tests: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other navigation tests
Sequential_Tests: Must precede all individual messaging tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical foundational test for all individual messaging functionality
Edge_Cases: Browser refresh, back button navigation, direct URL access
Risk_Areas: Tab switching functionality, session timeout during navigation
Security_Considerations: User session validation, role-based access verification

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Direct URL access to messaging page
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users may bookmark or directly access messaging URL
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Tab accessibility validation for screen readers
Type: Accessibility
Rationale: Compliance requirement for utility company accessibility standards
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 9: Bulk Message Personalization with Placeholders

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_009
Title: Verify bulk messages support personalization placeholders [name], [email] for customized mass communications
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Personalization, BulkMessaging, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/User-Acceptance/Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-PersonalizationEngine, MessageCustomization, PlaceholderProcessing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff sending personalized bulk communications
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of bulk message personalization functionality
Integration_Points: Personalization engine, Customer data service, Message templating system
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Product, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #17 - System must support placeholders (e.g., [name], [email]) for message personalization
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_008 (prerequisite), UX02US02_TC_010 (bulk message sending)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Personalization engine, Customer database, Message processing service, Template rendering
Performance_Baseline: Placeholder processing < 2 seconds for preview
Data_Requirements: Customer data with names and emails for placeholder testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with recipient list selected containing customer data
User_Roles_Permissions: Bulk messaging with personalization permissions
Test_Data: USR-007 (Billing Manager), LST-005 "Payment Reminders (25 recipients)" with customer data
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete recipient selection for bulk message	Audience "Consumers" and recipient list "Payment Reminders (25 recipients)" selected	LST-005, USR-007 session	Billing Manager testing payment reminders
2	Navigate to Message Configuration section	Message composition area visible with channel selection and message field	N/A	Setup for personalization testing
3	Select Email channel for bulk message	Email channel selected, message composition field available	Channel: Email	Email supports personalization best
4	Enter message with [name] placeholder	Placeholder accepted and displayed in message field	"Dear [name], This is a friendly reminder..."	AC #17 - name placeholder support
5	Add [email] placeholder to message	Both placeholders visible in message composition	"...please contact us at [email] for assistance"	Multiple placeholder support
6	Verify placeholder formatting and recognition	Placeholders display with distinct formatting (different color/highlighting)	[name] and [email] highlighted	Visual placeholder recognition
7	Test placeholder case sensitivity	Verify [Name], [NAME], [Email] variations are handled consistently	Test [Name], [EMAIL] variations	Case handling validation
8	Add invalid placeholder format	Test system response to incorrect placeholder syntax	[invalidfield], {name}, %email%	Invalid placeholder handling
9	Create complete personalized message	Compose realistic utility payment reminder with multiple placeholders	"Dear [name], Your utility payment of $127.35 is due on April 25, 2025. Contact [email] if needed."	Sample payment reminder from user story
10	Preview message personalization (if available)	System shows sample of how message will appear with actual customer data	Preview with sample customer data	Personalization preview validation
11	Verify character count with placeholders	Message length calculated correctly considering placeholder expansion	Check character count display	Length calculation with placeholders
12	Test message with placeholders only	Message containing only placeholders without additional text	"[name] [email]"	Edge case validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Placeholders [name] and [email] are accepted, recognized, and properly formatted in bulk messages
Secondary_Verifications: Multiple placeholder support, case handling, invalid placeholder rejection
Negative_Verification: Invalid placeholder formats rejected, no system errors with placeholder processing

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008
Blocked_Tests: Bulk message sending with personalization
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other message composition tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede bulk message delivery tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for utility customer communication personalization and engagement
Edge_Cases: Very long names, special characters in names, missing customer data for placeholders
Risk_Areas: Personalization engine integration, customer data retrieval, placeholder processing
Security_Considerations: Customer data privacy, placeholder injection prevention

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Additional utility-specific placeholders ([account_number], [service_address])
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Utility communications often require account-specific information
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Placeholder fallback values for missing customer data
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Handle scenarios where customer data is incomplete
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 10: Bulk Message Delivery Time Estimation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_010
Title: Verify estimated delivery time is displayed for bulk messages within 15 minutes as specified
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P3-Medium
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Performance, DeliveryEstimation, MOD-Messaging, P3-Medium, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Performance-Metrics/User-Acceptance/Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-Low, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Low, Integration-DeliveryService, TimeEstimation, BulkProcessing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff scheduling bulk communications
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Could-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Low
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: None
Failure_Impact: Low

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of delivery time estimation functionality
Integration_Points: Delivery estimation service, Bulk processing queue, Performance monitoring
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/Engineering
Report_Categories: Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Low

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #18 - System must display estimated delivery time for bulk messages (within 15 minutes)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_008 (recipient count), UX02US02_TC_011 (bulk message sending)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Delivery estimation service, Bulk processing system, Performance monitoring tools
Performance_Baseline: Estimation calculation < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Various recipient list sizes for estimation testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with complete message configuration
User_Roles_Permissions: Bulk messaging permissions with delivery estimation access
Test_Data: USR-008 (CSO Manager), Multiple lists: LST-006 "Small Group (50 recipients)", LST-007 "Large Area (500 recipients)"
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete bulk message setup with small recipient list	Message configured with audience, list "Small Group (50 recipients)", channel, and content	LST-006, USR-008 session	CSO Manager testing delivery estimates
2	Navigate to Delivery Options section	Delivery Options section visible with scheduling controls and estimation area	N/A	AC #18 - delivery time display location
3	Verify estimated delivery time display	Estimated delivery time shows "Within 15 minutes" or similar timeframe	N/A	Baseline estimation validation
4	Change to larger recipient list	Select "Large Area (500 recipients)" and observe estimation update	LST-007 selection	Test estimation with larger list
5	Verify estimation updates with list size	Delivery time estimation updates to reflect larger recipient count appropriately	Updated estimate display	Size-based estimation logic
6	Check estimation for immediate delivery	With "Send immediately" option, verify estimation shows current delivery window	Immediate delivery selected	Real-time delivery estimation
7	Test estimation for scheduled delivery	Enable "Schedule for later" and verify estimation adjusts for future delivery	Schedule: Tomorrow 9:00 AM	Scheduled delivery estimation
8	Verify estimation format and clarity	Estimation displays in clear, user-friendly format (e.g., "Estimated delivery: Within 15 minutes")	N/A	User experience validation
9	Test with maximum recipient list size	Use largest available list to verify estimation remains reasonable	LST-008 "All Customers (1000+ recipients)"	Maximum capacity estimation
10	Verify estimation persistence	Estimation remains visible and accurate when modifying other message components	Modify message content	Estimation stability validation
11	Check estimation during different system load times	Test during peak and off-peak hours if possible	Various testing times	Load-based estimation variation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Estimated delivery time displays "Within 15 minutes" for bulk messages as specified
Secondary_Verifications: Estimation updates with list size, clear formatting, scheduling consideration
Negative_Verification: No unrealistic time estimates, no missing estimation displays

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008
Blocked_Tests: Performance validation tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other delivery option tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede actual bulk delivery tests

Additional Information

Notes: Important for user planning and expectation management during bulk communications
Edge_Cases: Very large lists, system high load, network congestion, multiple concurrent bulk sends
Risk_Areas: Estimation algorithm accuracy, system performance monitoring, delivery queue management
Security_Considerations: Performance information disclosure, system capacity revelation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Dynamic estimation updates based on real-time system load
Type: Performance
Rationale: More accurate estimates during varying system conditions
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Estimation accuracy tracking and validation
Type: Quality Assurance
Rationale: Verify actual delivery times match estimates for continuous improvement
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 11: Individual Message Scheduling with Date and Time Selection

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_011
Title: Verify individual messages can be scheduled for later delivery with proper date and time selection interface
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Scheduling, DateTime, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/User-Acceptance/Integration-Testing, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-SchedulingService, MessageScheduling, TimeManagement

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring scheduled customer communications
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of individual message scheduling functionality
Integration_Points: Scheduling service, Date/time picker, Message queue system, Scheduled Messages page
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: User-Acceptance, Integration-Testing, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #8 - System must allow scheduling individual messages for later delivery with date/time selection
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_003 (individual email), UX02US02_TC_012 (scheduled messages page)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+, Safari 16+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Scheduling service, Date/time picker component, Message queue system, Database
Performance_Baseline: Scheduling interface < 2 seconds, schedule confirmation < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Valid future dates and times for scheduling tests

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging interface with complete message ready for sending
User_Roles_Permissions: Message scheduling permissions
Test_Data: USR-009 (Call Center Representative), Email: service_alerts@gasutility.com, MSG-004 scheduled content
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete individual email message composition	All required fields filled: email, subject, message content	Recipient: service_alerts@gasutility.com<br>Subject: "Scheduled Maintenance Notice"<br>Message: "Dear Customer, We will be performing system maintenance..."	USR-009 Call Center Rep testing
2	Locate "Schedule for later" option	Checkbox labeled "Schedule for later" visible in delivery options or below message area	N/A	AC #8 - scheduling option availability
3	Check "Schedule for later" checkbox	Checkbox becomes checked, date and time selection interface appears	Schedule option enabled	UI state change validation
4	Verify date picker interface	Date picker component loads showing calendar with current date highlighted	N/A	Date selection component validation
5	Select future date from date picker	Future date selectable and updates in date field	Date: April 20, 2025	Sample future date selection
6	Verify time picker interface	Time picker shows hours and minutes selection with AM/PM or 24-hour format	N/A	Time selection component validation
7	Select specific time	Time value updates correctly in time field	Time: 8:00 AM	Sample scheduling time
8	Verify past date/time validation	System prevents selection of past dates or times with appropriate error message	Attempt: Yesterday's date	Past date prevention validation
9	Test date/time picker usability	Easy navigation between months, years, clear time selection	Navigate to next month	User experience validation
10	Complete scheduling and send	Click "Send Message" creates scheduled message instead of immediate delivery	Complete scheduling process	Scheduling vs immediate sending
11	Verify scheduling confirmation	Success message indicates message was scheduled: "Message scheduled for April 20, 2025 at 8:00 AM"	Confirmation display	Scheduling confirmation messaging
12	Check scheduled message appears in system	Scheduled message visible in Scheduled Messages page or history	Reference Scheduled Messages page	AC #10 - message history integration

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Individual messages can be scheduled with proper date and time selection interface
Secondary_Verifications: Date/time picker functionality, past date prevention, scheduling confirmation
Negative_Verification: Cannot schedule for past dates/times, no scheduling errors or failures

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003
Blocked_Tests: Scheduled message management tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with bulk scheduling tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede scheduled message page tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for utility maintenance notifications and planned customer communications
Edge_Cases: Daylight saving time transitions, timezone handling, very distant future dates, leap years
Risk_Areas: Date/time picker functionality, timezone management, scheduling service reliability
Security_Considerations: Schedule manipulation prevention, user session validation during scheduling

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Timezone selection for scheduled messages
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Utility companies may operate across multiple time zones
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Recurring message scheduling
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Regular utility communications like monthly billing reminders
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 12: Message Delivery Confirmation Display

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_012
Title: Verify delivery confirmation "Message delivered" is displayed when individual message is successfully sent
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Confirmation, UI, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/User-Acceptance/Integration-Testing, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-DeliveryService, MessageConfirmation, UserFeedback

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring confirmation of successful message delivery
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of message delivery confirmation functionality
Integration_Points: Message delivery service, Confirmation system, UI notification framework
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage, Quality-Dashboard
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #9 - System must display confirmation when individual message is successfully sent (as shown in UI)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_003 (email sending), UX02US02_TC_004 (SMS sending)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Message delivery service, UI notification system, Confirmation tracking
Performance_Baseline: Confirmation display < 3 seconds after send
Data_Requirements: Valid recipients for successful delivery testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging interface with valid message ready for immediate sending
User_Roles_Permissions: Message sending permissions with delivery confirmation access
Test_Data: USR-010 (Utility Administrator), Email: john.smith@cityelectric.net, MSG-005 confirmation test
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete valid individual email message	All required fields filled correctly with valid data	Email: john.smith@cityelectric.net<br>Subject: "Service Appointment Confirmation"<br>Message: "This is to confirm your service appointment..."	USR-010 Utility Admin testing
2	Ensure immediate delivery is selected	"Schedule for later" is unchecked, message set for immediate delivery	Immediate delivery mode	Not testing scheduling in this case
3	Click "Send Message" button	Processing indicator appears briefly showing message is being sent	N/A	User feedback during processing
4	Observe confirmation display	Success confirmation message appears: "Message delivered" matching UI specification	N/A	AC #9 - specific confirmation text
5	Verify confirmation message styling	Confirmation displays with appropriate styling (green color, checkmark icon, clear visibility)	N/A	UI specification compliance
6	Check confirmation message placement	Confirmation appears in logical location (top of form, modal, or notification area)	N/A	User experience validation
7	Verify confirmation timing	Confirmation appears within reasonable time after successful delivery (< 5 seconds)	N/A	Performance and timing validation
8	Test confirmation persistence	Confirmation message remains visible for appropriate duration then auto-dismisses or requires user action	N/A	Confirmation visibility management
9	Send another message to verify repeatability	Subsequent message sending shows same confirmation behavior	Second test message	Consistency validation
10	Test with different channels (SMS)	Send SMS message and verify same "Message delivered" confirmation appears	Mobile: +1-555-123-4567<br>Message: "Service reminder SMS"	Channel-agnostic confirmation
11	Verify form state after confirmation	Form resets or maintains state appropriately after successful delivery	N/A	Post-delivery form behavior

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: "Message delivered" confirmation appears exactly as specified in UI after successful individual message sending
Secondary_Verifications: Appropriate styling, timing, placement, and cross-channel consistency
Negative_Verification: No false confirmations for failed deliveries, no missing confirmations for successful sends

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_001, UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003
Blocked_Tests: Message history and tracking tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other confirmation tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede message history validation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for user confidence and workflow completion in customer service scenarios
Edge_Cases: Network delays, partial delivery failures, very quick successive message sends
Risk_Areas: Delivery service integration, confirmation timing, UI notification system
Security_Considerations: Confirmation accuracy, no false positive confirmations

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Delivery failure handling with appropriate error messages
Type: Error Handling
Rationale: Users need clear indication when message delivery fails
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Delivery status tracking with read receipts (if supported)
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Advanced delivery confirmation with recipient engagement tracking
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 13: Partial Bulk Delivery Failure Handling

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_013
Title: Verify partial failure handling in bulk messaging when some recipients are invalid or unreachable
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer/Billing Services, ErrorHandling, BulkMessaging, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Engineering/Regression-Coverage/API-Test-Results/Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-DeliveryService, FailureHandling, BulkProcessing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff managing bulk communications with mixed recipient validity
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 7 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of partial failure handling functionality
Integration_Points: Delivery service, Error handling system, Notification service, Retry mechanism
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, API-Test-Results
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #19 - System must handle partial failures in bulk messaging (e.g., some recipients are invalid)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_008 (recipient lists), UX02US02_TC_010 (bulk delivery)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Delivery service, Error handling system, Email validation service, SMS validation service
Performance_Baseline: Error processing < 5 seconds, partial delivery completion < 10 minutes
Data_Requirements: Mixed recipient list with valid and invalid addresses/numbers

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with mixed recipient list containing valid and invalid recipients
User_Roles_Permissions: Bulk messaging permissions with error reporting access
Test_Data: USR-011 (CSO Manager), LST-009 "Mixed Recipients (20 valid, 5 invalid emails)", MSG-006 partial failure test
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Set up bulk email message with mixed recipient list	Bulk message configured with list containing valid and invalid email addresses	LST-009 "Mixed Recipients"<br>Valid: consumer1@gmail.com, fieldtech@utilityco.com<br>Invalid: invalid-email, missing@, toolong@verylongdomainname...	USR-011 testing partial failures
2	Complete message composition	Subject and message content properly filled	Subject: "Service Area Maintenance Update"<br>Message: "Dear [name], Scheduled maintenance will occur..."	Standard bulk message with personalization
3	Send bulk message with mixed recipients	Bulk sending process initiates despite some invalid recipients	Send button clicked	System should attempt delivery to all
4	Monitor delivery progress	System shows processing status and begins delivery attempts	Processing indicator visible	Initial delivery attempt feedback
5	Verify partial success notification	System displays summary: "18 messages delivered successfully, 5 failed" or similar	Delivery summary display	AC #19 - partial failure reporting
6	Check detailed failure report	Failed recipients listed with specific error reasons (invalid format, domain not found, etc.)	Failed list shows:<br>- invalid-email: "Invalid format"<br>- missing@domain.com: "Invalid format"<br>- bounced@invalid.domain: "Domain not found"	Detailed error information
7	Verify successful deliveries are logged	Successfully sent messages appear in message history with "Delivered" status	Successful recipients logged properly	Partial success tracking
8	Test retry mechanism for failed recipients	Option to retry failed deliveries after correcting recipient data	Retry button or option available	Failure recovery workflow
9	Verify error notification persistence	Failure information remains accessible for review and action	Error details available in history/reports	Error tracking and reporting
10	Test with SMS channel partial failures	Send bulk SMS with invalid phone numbers and verify similar failure handling	Invalid numbers: 123, +1-invalid, +1-555-000-0000	Channel-specific failure handling
11	Check system stability after partial failures	System remains responsive and available for subsequent messaging	Send another message successfully	System stability validation
12	Verify billing/usage accuracy	Only successful deliveries counted in usage metrics/billing	Usage reports reflect actual deliveries only	Accurate usage tracking

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: System handles partial bulk delivery failures with detailed error reporting and successful delivery tracking
Secondary_Verifications: Error categorization, retry mechanisms, system stability, accurate usage tracking
Negative_Verification: No system crashes, no false success reporting, no loss of valid deliveries

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: High
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008
Blocked_Tests: Error reporting and analytics tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other error handling tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede usage reporting tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for utility bulk communications where recipient data quality varies
Edge_Cases: All recipients invalid, network timeouts during delivery, recipient list changes during sending
Risk_Areas: Error handling system, delivery service reliability, data accuracy tracking
Security_Considerations: Error information exposure, recipient data privacy in error reports

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Automatic recipient list cleaning based on delivery failures
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Improve list quality by flagging consistently failing recipients
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Failure pattern analysis and reporting for list quality improvement
Type: Analytics
Rationale: Help utility staff improve customer data quality
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 14: Template Selection and Usage Workflow

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_014
Title: Verify template selection functionality with "Use Default Template" vs "Custom Message" options in bulk messaging
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Templates, BulkMessaging, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/User-Acceptance/Integration-Testing, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-TemplateService, MessageTemplates, ContentManagement

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff using standardized communication templates
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of template selection and usage functionality
Integration_Points: Template management service, Content rendering engine, Template storage system
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Product, User-Acceptance, Integration-Testing
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Content Type selection from wireframes - "Use Default Template" vs "Custom Message" radio buttons, Template selection dropdown
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006 (bulk interface), UX02US02_TC_009 (personalization)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Template management service, Template storage, Content rendering engine
Performance_Baseline: Template loading < 2 seconds, template switching < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Predefined templates for utility communications

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with template functionality enabled
User_Roles_Permissions: Template usage permissions and access to predefined templates
Test_Data: USR-012 (Billing Manager), TPL-001 "Payment Reminder Template", TPL-002 "Service Notice Template"
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to bulk messaging Content Type section	Content Type section visible with radio button options	USR-012 session	Billing Manager testing templates
2	Verify default Content Type selection	"Use Default Template" radio button selected by default	N/A	Default state validation from wireframes
3	Observe template selection interface	"Select Template" dropdown appears when "Use Default Template" is selected	N/A	Template selection UI display
4	Click template dropdown	Available templates display: "Payment Reminder Template", "Service Notice Template", etc.	TPL-001, TPL-002 available	Template availability validation
5	Select "Payment Reminder Template"	Template selected, preview or content appears in message area	TPL-001 selection	Template content loading
6	Verify template content with placeholders	Template loads with predefined content including [name], [amount], [due_date] placeholders	Template content: "Dear [name], Your utility payment of [amount] is due on [due_date]..."	Template personalization support
7	Switch to "Custom Message" radio button	Message area becomes editable text field, template content clears	Custom Message selected	Template vs custom message switching
8	Enter custom message content	Custom message appears in editable text area	"Custom bulk message for service notification..."	Custom content validation
9	Switch back to "Use Default Template"	Template selection interface reappears, previously selected template remembered	Return to TPL-001	Template selection persistence
10	Change to different template	Select "Service Notice Template", content updates appropriately	TPL-002 selection	Template switching functionality
11	Verify template with different channel types	Test template compatibility with Email, SMS channels	Channel: Email vs SMS	Channel-specific template rendering
12	Complete bulk message with template	Send bulk message using template, verify placeholders populated correctly	Complete sending with TPL-001	Template-based bulk delivery

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Template selection works with "Use Default Template" vs "Custom Message" radio buttons and proper template dropdown functionality
Secondary_Verifications: Template content loading, placeholder support, channel compatibility, selection persistence
Negative_Verification: No template loading errors, no content corruption when switching between template and custom

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008
Blocked_Tests: Advanced template customization tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other content management tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede template personalization tests

Additional Information

Notes: Important for consistent utility communication standards and compliance
Edge_Cases: Very long templates, templates with complex formatting, missing templates, corrupted template data
Risk_Areas: Template storage system, content rendering, template-personalization integration
Security_Considerations: Template access permissions, content validation, template modification prevention

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Template editing and customization capabilities
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Allow utility staff to modify templates for specific situations
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Template approval workflow for compliance requirements
Type: Process
Rationale: Ensure all communication templates meet regulatory standards
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 15: Channel-Specific Formatting Rules Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_015
Title: Verify channel-specific formatting rules - Email rich text, SMS/WhatsApp plain text only
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, ChannelValidation, Formatting, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Engineering/Module-Coverage/Regression-Coverage/API-Test-Results, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ChannelServices, ContentFormatting, MessageValidation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff using different communication channels with specific formatting requirements
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of channel-specific formatting rules functionality
Integration_Points: Email service, SMS service, WhatsApp service, Content formatting engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Regression-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Business Rules section 1 - Channel-specific formatting rules: Email (rich text), SMS (plain text), WhatsApp (plain text)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_003 (email), UX02US02_TC_004 (SMS/WhatsApp)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Email formatting service, SMS character validation, WhatsApp message validation, Content processing engine
Performance_Baseline: Format validation < 500ms, content processing < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Test content with various formatting elements (bold, italics, links, special characters)

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual messaging interface with all channel options available
User_Roles_Permissions: Access to all communication channels with formatting capabilities
Test_Data: USR-013 (Customer Service Executive), Formatted content samples, Special characters, URLs
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003, UX02US02_TC_004 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Select Email channel in individual messaging	Email channel selected, message composition area loads	Channel: Email, USR-013 session	Customer Service Executive testing
2	Enter message with rich text formatting	Rich text formatting options available (bold, italic, underline, links)	Message: "Dear Customer, Important Notice: Your service will be temporarily suspended..."	Email supports rich text per BR-1
3	Add HTML formatting to email message	HTML elements accepted and properly rendered in email preview	HTML: "<b>Urgent:</b> <a href='http://utility.com'&gt;Click here</a>"	Email HTML support validation
4	Verify email character limit handling	Email accepts long content without character restrictions	Long message (1000+ characters)	Email length flexibility
5	Switch to SMS (Text) channel	Channel changes to SMS, formatting options disappear or are disabled	Channel: SMS/Text	SMS plain text only per BR-1
6	Attempt to enter formatted content in SMS	Rich formatting removed or converted to plain text automatically	Same formatted message as step 2	SMS formatting restriction
7	Verify SMS character limit enforcement	SMS shows character count and enforces 160-character limit or similar	SMS content up to character limit	SMS length restrictions
8	Test special characters in SMS	Special characters handled appropriately for SMS encoding	Characters: àáâ, €, ñ, Chinese characters	SMS character encoding
9	Switch to WhatsApp channel	Channel changes to WhatsApp, similar plain text restrictions as SMS	Channel: WhatsApp	WhatsApp plain text only per BR-1
10	Test WhatsApp content formatting	Rich formatting removed, plain text only accepted	Same test content as previous	WhatsApp formatting consistency with SMS
11	Verify WhatsApp character limits	WhatsApp shows appropriate character limits (higher than SMS)	Extended message content	WhatsApp vs SMS limit differences
12	Test cross-channel content consistency	Same message content renders appropriately across all channels	Standard utility message across all channels	Channel adaptation validation
13	Verify format dropdown in bulk messaging	"Plain Text" format option available in bulk messaging interface	Navigate to bulk messaging	Format selection per wireframes

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Channel-specific formatting rules enforced - Email supports rich text, SMS/WhatsApp only plain text
Secondary_Verifications: Character limit enforcement, special character handling, format conversion between channels
Negative_Verification: No rich formatting in SMS/WhatsApp, no character limit violations, no encoding errors

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_003, UX02US02_TC_004
Blocked_Tests: Advanced formatting and content tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other channel validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede message delivery tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for maintaining proper communication standards across different channels
Edge_Cases: Very long messages, complex HTML, emoji characters, international characters
Risk_Areas: Content formatting engine, channel service integration, character encoding
Security_Considerations: HTML injection prevention, content sanitization, encoding validation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Automatic content adaptation when switching channels
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Help users maintain content while respecting channel limitations
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Format preview for different channels
Type: User Experience
Rationale: Show users how their message will appear on each channel
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 16: Save as Draft Functionality

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_016
Title: Verify Save as Draft functionality for bulk messages with proper draft management and retrieval
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P3-Medium
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, DraftManagement, BulkMessaging, MOD-Messaging, P3-Medium, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/User-Acceptance/Integration-Testing, Customer-All, Risk-Low, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Low, Integration-DraftStorage, ContentPersistence, WorkflowManagement

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring draft message capabilities for complex bulk communications
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Could-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Low
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Low

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of draft management functionality
Integration_Points: Draft storage service, Content persistence system, User session management
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/QA
Report_Categories: Product, User-Acceptance, Integration-Testing
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Low

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Major Steps section 7 - "Save as Draft" functionality for bulk messages, Draft completion workflow
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006 (bulk interface), UX02US02_TC_014 (templates)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Draft storage service, Database, Session management, Content persistence
Performance_Baseline: Draft save < 2 seconds, draft retrieval < 3 seconds
Data_Requirements: Partial bulk message content for draft testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with partial message composition capability
User_Roles_Permissions: Draft creation and management permissions
Test_Data: USR-014 (Meter Manager), Partial bulk message content, DRAFT-001 test data
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Start bulk message composition	Bulk messaging interface loaded with empty form	USR-014 session	Meter Manager testing draft workflow
2	Partially complete bulk message setup	Fill some fields, leave others incomplete	Audience: Consumers<br>List: "Meter Reading Zone A (200 recipients)"<br>Channel: Email<br>Subject: "Scheduled Meter Reading Notice"	Partial completion scenario
3	Enter partial message content	Add message content but leave composition incomplete	Message: "Dear [name], We will be conducting meter readings in your area..."	Incomplete message for draft
4	Locate and click "Save as Draft" button	"Save as Draft" button visible in delivery options or bottom of form	N/A	Draft save functionality access
5	Verify draft save confirmation	Confirmation message appears: "Draft saved successfully" or similar	N/A	Draft save feedback
6	Navigate away from bulk messaging	Leave messaging section, go to Dashboard or other area	Navigate to Dashboard	Draft persistence testing
7	Return to bulk messaging interface	Bulk messaging interface loads with empty form initially	Return to Bulk tab	Clean interface on return
8	Access saved drafts	Find option to load/access saved drafts (menu, dropdown, or separate section)	Look for "Load Draft" or draft management	Draft retrieval mechanism
9	Select and load saved draft	Previously saved draft loads with all partial content restored	DRAFT-001 restored completely	Draft content restoration
10	Verify all draft data restored	All previously entered fields populated correctly	All data from step 2-3 restored	Complete data persistence
11	Complete draft and send	Finish composition and send message successfully	Complete message and send	Draft completion workflow
12	Verify draft removal after sending	Sent draft no longer appears in draft list	Check draft list empty or updated	Draft lifecycle management
13	Test multiple draft management	Create and manage multiple drafts simultaneously	Create DRAFT-002, DRAFT-003	Multiple draft handling

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Save as Draft functionality works with proper draft storage, retrieval, and completion workflow
Secondary_Verifications: Draft persistence across sessions, multiple draft management, draft removal after completion
Negative_Verification: No data loss during draft operations, no duplicate drafts, no orphaned drafts

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007
Blocked_Tests: Advanced draft management tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other workflow tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede complex message composition tests

Additional Information

Notes: Useful for complex utility communications requiring review and approval
Edge_Cases: Very large message content, network interruption during save, browser crash with unsaved drafts
Risk_Areas: Draft storage system, session management, data persistence
Security_Considerations: Draft access permissions, data privacy in stored drafts

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Auto-save draft functionality during composition
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Prevent data loss during long message composition sessions
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Draft sharing and collaboration features
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Allow team review of draft communications before sending
Priority: P4

---

Test Case 17: Scheduled Messages Page Integration

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_017
Title: Verify integration with Scheduled Messages page for viewing and managing scheduled communications
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, ScheduledMessages, Integration, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Integration, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Integration-Testing/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Product/User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ScheduledMessagesPage, MessageManagement, WorkflowIntegration

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff managing scheduled communications with need for oversight and control
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of Scheduled Messages page integration functionality
Integration_Points: Scheduled Messages page, Message scheduling service, Database, Navigation system
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/Engineering
Report_Categories: Integration-Testing, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #10 - Message history recording, Scheduled Messages page shown in wireframes, Navigation integration
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_011 (individual scheduling), UX02US02_TC_010 (bulk scheduling)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Scheduled Messages page, Scheduling service, Database integration, Navigation framework
Performance_Baseline: Page navigation < 2 ### Quality Metrics Risk_Level: Low
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: None
Failure_Impact: Low

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of delivery time estimation functionality
Integration_Points: Delivery estimation service, Bulk processing queue, Performance monitoring
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product/Engineering
Report_Categories: Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Low

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #18 - System must display estimated delivery time for bulk messages (within 15 minutes)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_008 (recipient count), UX02US02_TC_011 (bulk message sending)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Delivery estimation service, Bulk processing system, Performance monitoring tools
Performance_Baseline: Estimation calculation < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Various recipient list sizes for estimation testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Bulk messaging interface with complete message configuration
User_Roles_Permissions: Bulk messaging permissions with delivery estimation access
Test_Data: USR-008 (CSO Manager), Multiple lists: LST-006 "Small Group (50 recipients)", LST-007 "Large Area (500 recipients)"
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete bulk message setup with small recipient list	Message configured with audience, list "Small Group (50 recipients)", channel, and content	LST-006, USR-008 session	CSO Manager testing delivery estimates
2	Navigate to Delivery Options section	Delivery Options section visible with scheduling controls and estimation area	N/A	AC #18 - delivery time display location
3	Verify estimated delivery time display	Estimated delivery time shows "Within 15 minutes" or similar timeframe	N/A	Baseline estimation validation
4	Change to larger recipient list	Select "Large Area (500 recipients)" and observe estimation update	LST-007 selection	Test estimation with larger list
5	Verify estimation updates with list size	Delivery time estimation updates to reflect larger recipient count appropriately	Updated estimate display	Size-based estimation logic
6	Check estimation for immediate delivery	With "Send immediately" option, verify estimation shows current delivery window	Immediate delivery selected	Real-time delivery estimation
7	Test estimation for scheduled delivery	Enable "Schedule for later" and verify estimation adjusts for future delivery	Schedule: Tomorrow 9:00 AM	Scheduled delivery estimation
8	Verify estimation format and clarity	Estimation displays in clear, user-friendly format (e.g., "Estimated delivery: Within 15 minutes")	N/A	User experience validation
9	Test with maximum recipient list size	Use largest available list to verify estimation remains reasonable	LST-008 "All Customers (1000+ recipients)"	Maximum capacity estimation
10	Verify estimation persistence	Estimation remains visible and accurate when modifying other message components	Modify message content	Estimation stability validation
11	Check estimation during different system load times	Test during peak and off-peak hours if possible	Various testing times	Load-based estimation variation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Estimated delivery time displays "Within 15 minutes" for bulk messages as specified
Secondary_Verifications: Estimation updates with list size, clear formatting, scheduling consideration
Negative_Verification: No unrealistic time estimates, no missing estimation displays

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_006, UX02US02_TC_007, UX02US02_TC_008
Blocked_Tests: Performance validation tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other delivery option tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede actual bulk delivery tests

Additional Information

Notes: Important for user planning and expectation management during bulk communications
Edge_Cases: Very large lists, system high load, network congestion, multiple concurrent bulk sends
Risk_Areas: Estimation algorithm accuracy, system performance monitoring, delivery queue management
Security_Considerations: Performance information disclosure, system capacity revelation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Dynamic estimation updates based on real-time system load
Type: Performance
Rationale: More accurate estimates during varying system conditions
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Estimation accuracy tracking and validation
Type: Quality Assurance
Rationale: Verify actual delivery times match estimates for continuous improvement
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 18: Message History and Status Tracking

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_018
Title: Verify comprehensive message history tracking with delivery status (sent, delivered, read, failed) and sender details
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, MessageHistory, StatusTracking, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Integration, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Integration-Testing/Quality-Dashboard/Module-Coverage/Engineering/Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-HistoryService, DeliveryTracking, AuditTrail

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff requiring message audit trails and delivery confirmation for customer service
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 7 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of message history and status tracking functionality
Integration_Points: Message history service, Delivery tracking system, Database, Audit logging
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/QA
Report_Categories: Integration-Testing, Engineering, Customer-Segment-Analysis
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC #10 - Record all individual messages in history with timestamp and sender details, AC #11 - Display delivery status (sent, delivered, read, failed)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_012 (delivery confirmation), UX02US02_TC_013 (failure handling)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Message history service, Delivery tracking API, Database, Audit logging system
Performance_Baseline: History loading < 3 seconds, status updates < 2 seconds
Data_Requirements: Various message types with different delivery statuses

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Messaging system with history tracking enabled, various sent messages for testing
User_Roles_Permissions: Message history access and delivery status viewing permissions
Test_Data: USR-016 (Call Center Representative), Multiple sent messages with various statuses
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_012, UX02US02_TC_013 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Send individual email message	Individual message sent successfully with delivery confirmation	Email: fieldtech@utilityco.com<br>Subject: "Work Order Assignment"<br>Message: "Your next assignment..."	USR-016 Call Center Rep testing
2	Access message history section	Navigate to message history or sent messages area	History section accessible	History access validation
3	Verify sent message appears in history	Recently sent message visible in history list	Message from step 1 listed	AC #10 - message recording
4	Check message history details	History shows: timestamp, sender details, recipient, subject, delivery status	All details present and accurate	Comprehensive history tracking
5	Verify sender details recording	Sender shown as "USR-016 (Call Center Representative)" or similar format	Sender: USR-016 identity	AC #10 - sender details
6	Check initial delivery status	Message shows "Sent" status immediately after sending	Status: Sent	Initial status tracking
7	Wait for delivery status update	Status updates to "Delivered" after successful email delivery	Status: Delivered	AC #11 - delivery status display
8	Send SMS message to test different status	Send SMS to test mobile delivery tracking	Mobile: +1-555-987-6543<br>Message: "Service appointment reminder"	Multi-channel status tracking
9	Send message to invalid recipient	Send email to invalid address to test "Failed" status	Email: invalid@nonexistentdomain.xyz	Failure status testing
10	Verify failed message status	Failed message shows "Failed" status with error details	Status: Failed - reason displayed	Failure tracking validation
11	Test bulk message history tracking	Send bulk message and verify history tracking	Bulk to 10 recipients	Bulk message history integration
12	Check read receipt tracking (if available)	Verify "Read" status for messages that support read receipts	Status: Read (if supported)	AC #11 - read status tracking
13	Test history filtering and search	Filter messages by status, date, or recipient	Filter: "Failed messages today"	History management features
14	Verify history persistence	Message history retained across user sessions	Log out and back in	Data persistence validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Message history records all sent messages with timestamp, sender details, and accurate delivery status tracking
Secondary_Verifications: Status progression accuracy, multi-channel tracking, error detail recording
Negative_Verification: No missing history entries, no incorrect status updates, no data loss

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: High
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_012, UX02US02_TC_013
Blocked_Tests: Analytics and reporting tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other tracking tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede message analytics tests

Additional Information

Notes: Essential for utility customer service audit trails and compliance requirements
Edge_Cases: Very large message volumes, long-term history retention, status update delays
Risk_Areas: History service performance, status tracking accuracy, data storage limitations
Security_Considerations: Message history access control, audit trail integrity, data retention policies

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Export message history for compliance reporting
Type: Compliance
Rationale: Regulatory requirements for communication audit trails
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Advanced analytics on message delivery patterns
Type: Analytics
Rationale: Improve communication effectiveness and identify delivery issues
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 19: Role-Based Permissions Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_019
Title: Verify role-based access control for messaging features across different utility staff user types
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Security
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Security
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Security, Consumer/Billing/Meter Services, RoleBasedAccess, Permissions, MOD-Messaging, P1-Critical, Phase-Security, Type-Security, Platform-Web, Report-Security-Validation/Quality-Dashboard/Engineering/Module-Coverage/Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-RoleBased, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-AuthorizationService, AccessControl, UserManagement

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff roles with different messaging permission levels
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of role-based permissions functionality
Integration_Points: Authorization service, User management system, Role definition service
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Security/Engineering
Report_Categories: Security-Validation, Engineering, Quality-Dashboard
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: Critical

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: User Story section 2 - Five user types with different permissions: CSO Manager, Call Center Rep, Utility Admin, Billing Manager, Meter Manager
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: All previous test cases for permission validation

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Authorization service, User management system, Role configuration
Performance_Baseline: Permission validation < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Test accounts for all five user role types

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Test accounts configured for all utility staff roles with appropriate permissions
User_Roles_Permissions: Access to all role types for testing
Test_Data: USR-017 (CSO Manager), USR-018 (Call Center Rep), USR-019 (Utility Admin), USR-020 (Billing Manager), USR-021 (Meter Manager)
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic messaging functionality tests must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Login as CSO Manager	Full messaging access including individual and bulk messaging	USR-017 (CSO Manager)	Highest level access testing
2	Verify CSO Manager bulk messaging access	All bulk messaging features accessible: all audience types, all channels	Full access validation	Complete feature access
3	Test CSO Manager recipient list access	Access to all recipient lists across different audience types	All lists available	Comprehensive list access
4	Login as Call Center Representative	Limited messaging access focused on individual customer communications	USR-018 (Call Center Rep)	Individual-focused role testing
5	Check Call Center Rep bulk messaging restrictions	Bulk messaging limited or unavailable, focus on individual messaging	Limited bulk access	Role-appropriate restrictions
6	Verify Call Center Rep channel restrictions	May have limited channels (email, SMS only, no WhatsApp/notifications)	Restricted channel access	Channel-based permissions
7	Login as Utility Administrator	Administrative access to messaging with configuration capabilities	USR-019 (Utility Admin)	Administrative role testing
8	Test Utility Admin system configuration access	Access to messaging settings, templates, recipient list management	Admin configuration access	Administrative capabilities
9	Login as Billing Manager	Billing-focused messaging access with relevant audience types	USR-020 (Billing Manager)	Department-specific access
10	Verify Billing Manager audience restrictions	Primary access to "Consumers" audience, limited access to "Technicians/Business"	Billing-relevant audiences	Audience-based restrictions
11	Test Billing Manager template access	Access to billing-related templates, restricted from operational templates	Billing templates only	Template-based permissions
12	Login as Meter Manager	Meter-focused messaging with service area restrictions	USR-021 (Meter Manager)	Operational role testing
13	Check Meter Manager recipient list restrictions	Access limited to meter reading areas, service territories	Geographic/operational lists	Territory-based access
14	Test unauthorized access prevention	Verify roles cannot access features beyond their permissions	Attempt cross-role access	Security boundary validation
15	Verify error messages for restricted access	Clear error messages when accessing unauthorized features	"Access denied" or similar	User-friendly security feedback

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Each user role has appropriate messaging permissions matching their job function and organizational access levels
Secondary_Verifications: Proper access restrictions, clear error messaging, consistent permission enforcement
Negative_Verification: No unauthorized access to restricted features, no permission escalation vulnerabilities

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: High
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: User authentication and authorization system tests
Blocked_Tests: Advanced security and compliance tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other security validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede compliance validation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for utility data security and regulatory compliance
Edge_Cases: Role changes during active sessions, permission updates, emergency access scenarios
Risk_Areas: Authorization service, role configuration, permission enforcement
Security_Considerations: Access control bypass prevention, audit logging of permission violations

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Dynamic permission updates during active sessions
Type: Security
Rationale: Ensure permission changes take effect immediately for security
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Emergency access procedures for critical communications
Type: Business Continuity
Rationale: Allow emergency communications during system issues
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 20: Character Limits and Content Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: UX02US02_TC_020
Title: Verify character limits and content validation across different communication channels with proper error handling
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Individual & Bulk messaging
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, ContentValidation, CharacterLimits, MOD-Messaging, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard/Engineering/Regression-Coverage/API-Test-Results/Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ContentValidation, MessageValidation, ChannelLimits

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All utility staff ensuring proper message formatting and delivery across channels
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of character limits and content validation functionality
Integration_Points: Content validation service, Channel-specific APIs, Character counting engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering/QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Regression-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Business Rules - Channel-specific formatting and character limits, Content validation requirements
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_015 (channel formatting), UX02US02_TC_005 (content validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Content validation service, Channel APIs, Character counting system
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 300ms, character counting < 100ms
Data_Requirements: Test content of various lengths and character types

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Individual and bulk messaging interfaces with character counting and validation
User_Roles_Permissions: Message composition permissions across all channels
Test_Data: USR-022 (Customer Service Executive), Various length content samples
Prior_Test_Cases: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_015 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Select SMS channel in individual messaging	SMS channel selected with character counter visible	Channel: SMS, USR-022 session	Customer Service Executive testing
2	Enter message within SMS limit	Character count updates, message accepted	"Service appointment confirmed for 2 PM" (40 characters)	Within SMS standard limit
3	Verify SMS character counter	Real-time character count displayed: "40/160" or similar format	Counter shows current/limit	Real-time counting validation
4	Approach SMS character limit	Warning appears as limit approaches	Message near 160 characters	Limit warning system
5	Exceed SMS character limit	Error message or prevention when exceeding limit	Message over 160 characters	SMS limit enforcement
6	Test SMS with special characters	Special characters counted correctly (may count as multiple)	Message with àáâ, €, emojis	Special character handling
7	Switch to email channel	No character limit restrictions, counter hidden or shows higher limit	Channel: Email	Email flexibility validation
8	Enter very long email content	Long email content accepted without character restrictions	Email with 2000+ characters	Email length flexibility
9	Test WhatsApp character limits	WhatsApp shows appropriate character limits (higher than SMS)	Channel: WhatsApp	WhatsApp vs SMS differences
10	Verify subject line character limits	Email subject has reasonable character limit with validation	Very long subject line test	Subject-specific limits
11	Test bulk messaging character limits	Same character limits apply consistently in bulk messaging	Bulk SMS vs individual SMS	Consistency across interfaces
12	Test special content validation	URLs, phone numbers, email addresses validated properly	Content with URLs, phone numbers	Content type validation
13	Verify error message clarity	Clear, helpful error messages for character limit violations	Various limit violations	User-friendly error messaging

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Character limits properly enforced across all channels with real-time counting and clear error messages
Secondary_Verifications: Special character handling, consistent limits across individual/bulk messaging, content type validation
Negative_Verification: No character limit bypass, no counting errors, no unclear error messages

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Template for recording actual behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence references]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release
Maintenance_Effort: Medium
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: UX02US02_TC_002, UX02US02_TC_015
Blocked_Tests: Advanced content processing tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede message delivery tests

Additional Information

Notes: Essential for proper message delivery and user experience across different communication channels
Edge_Cases: Unicode characters, emoji handling, copy-paste operations, international text
Risk_Areas: Character counting accuracy, validation service performance, cross-channel consistency
Security_Considerations: Content sanitization, injection prevention through length limits

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Automatic message splitting for SMS over character limits
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Allow long messages to be sent as multiple SMS parts
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Content optimization suggestions for channel limits
Type: User Experience
Rationale: Help users optimize messages for different channels
Priority: P3