Skip to main content

Message History Management System Test Cases - UX05US05





Test Case 1: Display All Message Types in Unified Interface

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_001

Title: Verify unified display of all message types (Email, SMS, Notification, WhatsApp) in Message History interface Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • 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], [Communication Services], [UI, Database], MOD-[MessageHistory], 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-[Communication-Services], Message-Display, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • 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: Medium
  • Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 25%
  • Integration_Points: Communication Services, Database, UI
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Smoke-Test-Results
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Communication Services API, Message Database, Authentication Service
  • Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds page load
  • Data_Requirements: Messages of all types (Email, SMS, Notification, WhatsApp)

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Active message history data with all message types
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with full message history permissions
  • Test_Data: Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com, SMS usage alerts, WhatsApp payment confirmations, System maintenance notifications
  • Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication and login successful

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to History section in the left navigation menu

History page loads successfully showing "Message History" header and table

N/A

Verify navigation and page load per user story

2

Observe the message history table structure

Table displays with columns: TYPE, MESSAGE, RECIPIENT, CHANNEL, STATUS, SENT, ACTIONS

N/A

Verify table structure matches wireframe

3

Verify Email message display in TYPE column

Email messages show with email icon and "Email" label

Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com

Reference AC1 - unified interface

4

Verify SMS message display in TYPE column

SMS messages show with SMS icon and "SMS" label

Usage alert SMS messages

Verify SMS type display

5

Verify WhatsApp message display in TYPE column

WhatsApp messages show with WhatsApp icon and "WhatsApp" label

Payment confirmation WhatsApp messages

Verify WhatsApp type display

6

Verify Notification message display in TYPE column

Notification messages show with notification icon and "Notification" label

System maintenance notifications

Verify Notification type display

7

Scroll through complete message list

All message types appear together in chronological order (newest first)

Mixed message types from last 30 days

Business Rule: chronological organization

8

Verify unified interface presentation

All message types use consistent row formatting and column alignment

All test message types

AC1 verification - unified display

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: All four message types (Email, SMS, Notification, WhatsApp) are displayed in the same unified interface table
  • Secondary_Verifications: TYPE column correctly identifies each message type with appropriate icons and labels
  • Negative_Verification: No message types are excluded, filtered out, or displayed in separate interfaces

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 and login
  • Blocked_Tests: UX05US05_TC_003, UX05US05_TC_004 (filtering tests)
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators)
  • Sequential_Tests: Must pass before filtering and search tests

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical foundation test for unified message display as specified in user story solution
  • Edge_Cases: Large number of mixed message types, empty message history
  • Risk_Areas: Message type detection, unified interface consistency
  • Security_Considerations: Message content visibility based on user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Message type icon accessibility for screen readers

  • Type: Accessibility

  • Rationale: B2B SaaS compliance requirements for assistive technologies

  • Priority: P3

  • Scenario_2: Message type sorting within unified display

  • Type: Enhancement

  • Rationale: User story mentions chronological order but not type-based sub-sorting

  • Priority: P4




Test Case 2: Clear Visual Status Indicators

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_002

Title: Verify clear visual indicators for message status with color coding (failed-red, sent-blue, pending-yellow, delivered-green) Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: UI
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Smoke
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI], MOD-[MessageHistory], P1-[Critical], Phase-[Smoke], Type-[UI], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, User-Acceptance, Cross-Browser-Results, Module-Coverage, Security-Validation], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[Critical], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Status-Tracking], Visual-Indicators, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Must-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: Yes
  • SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics:

  • Risk_Level: Low
  • Complexity_Level: Low
  • Expected_Execution_Time: 2 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: Low
  • Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 20%
  • Integration_Points: Status Tracking System, UI Components
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, User-Acceptance, Cross-Browser-Results
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Message Status Service, UI Component Library
  • Performance_Baseline: Immediate visual response
  • Data_Requirements: Messages with all four status types (failed, sent, pending, delivered)

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Messages with varied status states for testing
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access
  • Test_Data: Failed Account Verification to robert.johnson@example.com, Delivered payment confirmations, Pending maintenance alerts, Sent billing notices
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface display)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Message History interface loads with STATUS column visible

N/A

Verify STATUS column presence

2

Locate failed status messages in STATUS column

Failed messages display with red color indicator and "Failed" text

Failed Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com

Business Rule: red for failed

3

Verify red color contrast and readability

Red color has sufficient contrast (4.5:1 ratio) and is clearly distinguishable

Failed status messages

Accessibility compliance

4

Locate sent status messages in STATUS column

Sent messages display with blue color indicator and "Sent" text

Sent billing notification messages

Business Rule: blue for sent

5

Verify blue color contrast and readability

Blue color has sufficient contrast and is clearly distinguishable

Sent status messages

Visual clarity verification

6

Locate pending status messages in STATUS column

Pending messages display with yellow color indicator and "Pending" text

Pending maintenance alert messages

Business Rule: yellow for pending

7

Verify yellow color contrast and readability

Yellow color has sufficient contrast and is clearly distinguishable

Pending status messages

Visibility verification

8

Locate delivered status messages in STATUS column

Delivered messages display with green color indicator and "Delivered" text

Delivered payment confirmation to customers

Business Rule: green for delivered

9

Verify green color contrast and readability

Green color has sufficient contrast and is clearly distinguishable

Delivered status messages

Success indicator verification

10

Test color-blind accessibility

Status indicators remain distinguishable using color-blind simulation tools

All status types

Accessibility compliance check

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Each status has distinct color coding exactly as specified (red-failed, blue-sent, yellow-pending, green-delivered)
  • Secondary_Verifications: All status indicators meet accessibility contrast requirements and are readable
  • Negative_Verification: No status appears without proper visual indicator or with incorrect color coding

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: Planned

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: UX05US05_TC_004 (status filtering)
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_003 (type filtering)
  • Sequential_Tests: Required for status-based filtering tests

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for user experience and operational efficiency in identifying failed communications
  • Edge_Cases: Status transition timing, multiple status updates
  • Risk_Areas: Color accessibility, visual consistency across browsers
  • Security_Considerations: Status information visibility based on user permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Status indicator animation during real-time updates

  • Type: Enhancement

  • Rationale: User story mentions real-time status updates but visual feedback unclear

  • Priority: P3

  • Scenario_2: High contrast mode compatibility

  • Type: Accessibility

  • Rationale: B2B SaaS accessibility requirements for vision-impaired users

  • Priority: P2




Test Case 3: Single-Click Type Filtering

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_003

Title: Verify single-click filtering by message type using Type dropdown filter Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Filter], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Performance-Metrics], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[Medium], Integration-[Filter-Service], Type-Filter, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics:

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

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 15%
  • Integration_Points: Filter Service, Database Query Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, User-Acceptance
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Filter Service API, Message Database, UI Components
  • Performance_Baseline: < 1 second filter response
  • Data_Requirements: Mixed message types for comprehensive filtering test

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Message history with all four message types (Email, SMS, WhatsApp, Notification)
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with filtering permissions
  • Test_Data: Account Verification emails to robert.johnson@example.com, SMS usage alerts, WhatsApp payment confirmations, System maintenance notifications
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface display successful)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page displays with all message types and Type dropdown filter visible

Mixed message dataset

Verify filter availability

2

Locate Type dropdown filter control

Type dropdown is prominently displayed and accessible with clear labeling

N/A

UI element identification

3

Click on Type dropdown filter

Dropdown opens showing options: "All", "Email", "SMS", "WhatsApp", "Notification"

N/A

AC3 - single click access

4

Select "Email" from Type dropdown

Only Email messages display in table, other types filtered out

Account Verification emails, billing notices

Email filter verification

5

Verify Email filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with TYPE = "Email", count matches expected

Email messages only

Filter accuracy check

6

Select "SMS" from Type dropdown

Only SMS messages display in table

Usage alert SMS messages

SMS filter verification

7

Verify SMS filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with TYPE = "SMS", count matches expected

SMS messages only

Filter accuracy check

8

Select "WhatsApp" from Type dropdown

Only WhatsApp messages display in table

Payment confirmation WhatsApp messages

WhatsApp filter verification

9

Verify WhatsApp filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with TYPE = "WhatsApp", count matches expected

WhatsApp messages only

Filter accuracy check

10

Select "Notification" from Type dropdown

Only Notification messages display in table

System maintenance notifications

Notification filter verification

11

Verify Notification filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with TYPE = "Notification", count matches expected

Notification messages only

Filter accuracy check

12

Select "All" from Type dropdown

All message types display again in unified table

Full mixed dataset

Filter reset verification

13

Verify filter reset functionality

Complete message list restored with all types visible

Original full dataset

Reset functionality

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Single click on Type filter successfully filters messages by selected type with immediate results
  • Secondary_Verifications: Filter dropdown shows all available message types and "All" option for reset
  • Negative_Verification: Filtered results don't show messages of other types, no incorrect filtering occurs

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: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: Combined filtering scenarios
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_004 (status filtering)
  • Sequential_Tests: Individual type filters before combined filtering

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Essential for user workflow efficiency when focusing on specific communication channels
  • Edge_Cases: Empty filter results, very large datasets with filtering
  • Risk_Areas: Filter performance with large datasets, UI responsiveness
  • Security_Considerations: Type-based access restrictions per user role

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Type filter keyboard navigation and shortcuts

  • Type: Accessibility

  • Rationale: Keyboard-only users need efficient filter access

  • Priority: P3

  • Scenario_2: Type filter state persistence across page refreshes

  • Type: Enhancement

  • Rationale: User workflow efficiency for extended research sessions

  • Priority: P4




Test Case 4: Single-Click Status Filtering

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_004

Title: Verify single-click filtering by message status using Status dropdown filter Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Filter], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Status-Filter-Service], Status-Filter, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Should-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: Medium
  • Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 15%
  • Integration_Points: Status Filter Service, Message Status Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Customer-Segment-Analysis
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Status Filter Service, Message Status Database, UI Filter Components
  • Performance_Baseline: < 1 second filter response
  • Data_Requirements: Messages with all four status types distributed across communication types

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Message history with varied status states for comprehensive testing
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with status filtering permissions
  • Test_Data: Failed Account Verification to robert.johnson@example.com, Delivered payment confirmations, Pending maintenance alerts, Sent billing notices
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page displays with messages of various statuses and Status dropdown filter visible

Mixed status dataset

Verify filter availability

2

Locate Status dropdown filter control

Status dropdown is prominently displayed with clear "Status" labeling

N/A

UI element identification

3

Click on Status dropdown filter

Dropdown opens showing options: "All", "Failed", "Sent", "Pending", "Delivered"

N/A

AC4 - single click access

4

Select "Failed" from Status dropdown

Only failed messages display with red status indicators

Failed Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com

Critical filter for operational efficiency

5

Verify failed filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with STATUS = "Failed", all have red indicators

Failed messages dataset

Business critical verification

6

Count failed messages displayed

Message count matches expected failed message total

Failed status messages

Data accuracy verification

7

Select "Delivered" from Status dropdown

Only delivered messages display with green status indicators

Delivered payment confirmations

Success status filter

8

Verify delivered filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with STATUS = "Delivered", all have green indicators

Delivered messages dataset

Filter accuracy check

9

Select "Pending" from Status dropdown

Only pending messages display with yellow status indicators

Pending maintenance alert messages

Pending status filter

10

Verify pending filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with STATUS = "Pending", all have yellow indicators

Pending messages dataset

Filter accuracy check

11

Select "Sent" from Status dropdown

Only sent messages display with blue status indicators

Sent billing notification messages

Sent status filter

12

Verify sent filter results accuracy

Table shows only messages with STATUS = "Sent", all have blue indicators

Sent messages dataset

Filter accuracy check

13

Select "All" from Status dropdown

All messages regardless of status display in table

Full status dataset

Filter reset verification

14

Verify filter reset functionality

Complete message list restored with all status types visible

Original mixed dataset

Reset functionality

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Single click on Status filter successfully filters messages by selected status with visual indicator consistency
  • Secondary_Verifications: Visual indicators match filtered status type, message counts are accurate
  • Negative_Verification: Filtered results don't show messages with other statuses, no status indicator mismatches

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: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators)
  • Blocked_Tests: Combined status and type filtering scenarios
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_003 (type filtering)
  • Sequential_Tests: Individual status filters before combined filtering

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for identifying and addressing failed communications that require immediate follow-up
  • Edge_Cases: Empty status filter results, rapid status changes during filtering
  • Risk_Areas: Filter performance, status synchronization accuracy
  • Security_Considerations: Status visibility based on user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Failed status filter with priority sorting

  • Type: Enhancement

  • Rationale: Critical failed messages may need priority handling

  • Priority: P2

  • Scenario_2: Status filter with time-based sub-filtering

  • Type: Enhancement

  • Rationale: Recent failed messages may need immediate attention

  • Priority: P3




Test Case 5: Search Functionality Across Subject, Recipient, Tags

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_005

Title: Verify comprehensive search function across subject, recipient, and tags fields with real-time results Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [Search, Database], MOD-[MessageHistory], P1-[Critical], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance, Engineering], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[Critical], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Search-Engine], Search-Functionality, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Must-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: Yes
  • SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics:

  • Risk_Level: Low
  • Complexity_Level: High
  • Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: High
  • Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 20%
  • Integration_Points: Search Engine, Database Query Service, Content Indexing
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Search Engine Service, Message Content Database, Indexing Service
  • Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds search response
  • Data_Requirements: Messages with varied subjects, recipients, and tags for comprehensive search testing

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Indexed message content with searchable subjects, recipients, and tags
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with full search permissions
  • Test_Data: Account Verification emails to robert.johnson@example.com, Invoice messages, Payment confirmations, Usage alerts with tags
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (message display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Search bar visible at top with placeholder "Search by template name or recipient"

N/A

Verify search bar availability per wireframe

2

Click in search input field

Search field becomes active with cursor positioned for input

N/A

Search field activation

3

Enter subject keyword "Account Verification"

Results show messages matching subject keyword within 2 seconds

Subject: "Account Verification"

AC5 - subject search capability

4

Verify subject search results accuracy

Only messages with "Account Verification" in subject display

Account Verification emails to robert.johnson@example.com

Subject filtering verification

5

Clear search and enter recipient email "robert.johnson@example.com"

Results show all messages sent to that specific recipient

Search: "robert.johnson@example.com"

AC5 - recipient search capability

6

Verify recipient search results accuracy

Only messages to robert.johnson@example.com are displayed

Messages to robert.johnson@example.com

Recipient filtering verification

7

Clear search and enter tag keyword "invoice"

Results show messages with matching tags

Search: "invoice"

AC5 - tag search capability

8

Verify tag search results accuracy

Messages with "invoice" tags are displayed

Invoice-tagged messages

Tag filtering verification

9

Test partial keyword search with "Account"

Partial matches return results including "Account Verification"

Search: "Account"

Partial matching capability

10

Verify partial search results

Results include all messages containing "Account" in subject, recipient, or tags

Messages with "Account" keyword

Partial search verification

11

Test case-insensitive search with "account verification"

Results appear regardless of case

Search: "account verification" (lowercase)

Case insensitive search

12

Verify case-insensitive results

Same results as "Account Verification" search

Same account verification messages

Case sensitivity verification

13

Test search across multiple fields with "robert"

Results show messages where "robert" appears in subject, recipient, or tags

Search: "robert"

Multi-field search capability

14

Verify multi-field search accuracy

Results include messages with "robert" in any searchable field

All robert-related messages

Cross-field search verification

15

Clear search box completely

All messages display again, search is reset

Empty search

Reset functionality per AC5

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Search function works across subject, recipient, and tags fields with accurate results
  • Secondary_Verifications: Search is case-insensitive, supports partial matching, and provides real-time results
  • Negative_Verification: Search doesn't return irrelevant results or miss relevant matches

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: Medium
  • Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: UX05US05_TC_012 (invalid search inputs)
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_003, UX05US05_TC_004 (filtering)
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic search before advanced search scenarios

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for customer service efficiency when responding to customer inquiries about communications
  • Edge_Cases: Empty search results, very long search terms, special characters
  • Risk_Areas: Search performance with large datasets, search accuracy
  • Security_Considerations: Search results limited by user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Search result highlighting and snippet preview
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: User experience improvement for quick content identification
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Search history and saved searches
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Workflow efficiency for repeated searches
  • Priority: P4




Test Case 6: Sortable Date Column

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_006

Title: Verify sorting functionality by Date column with ascending and descending options Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Sort], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Performance-Metrics, Module-Coverage], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[Low], Integration-[Sort-Service], Date-Sorting, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Low
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics:

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

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 10%
  • Integration_Points: Sort Service, Database Query Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, User-Acceptance
  • Trend_Tracking: No
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Sort Service, Message Database, UI Table Components
  • Performance_Baseline: < 1 second sort response
  • Data_Requirements: Messages with varied timestamps for comprehensive sorting test

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Message history with chronological data spanning multiple days/weeks
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with sorting permissions
  • Test_Data: Messages from different dates including Account Verification emails, recent and older communications
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (message display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page loads with messages in default date sorting (newest first)

Chronological message dataset

Business Rule: default descending sort

2

Verify default sort order

Messages arranged by SENT date, newest at top (descending order)

Mixed date messages

Default sort verification

3

Observe Date column header

SENT column header is clickable with sort indicator showing current direction

N/A

Sortable column identification

4

Click on SENT column header once

Sort indicator changes to show ascending direction

N/A

AC6 - sortable column functionality

5

Verify ascending sort order

Messages rearranged with oldest at top, chronological ascending order

Same message dataset

Ascending sort verification

6

Verify ascending sort accuracy

Dates progress from oldest to newest throughout the list

Historical messages

Date sequence accuracy

7

Click SENT column header again

Sort indicator changes back to descending direction

N/A

Toggle functionality

8

Verify descending sort order

Messages rearranged with newest at top, chronological descending order

Same message dataset

Descending sort verification

9

Verify descending sort accuracy

Dates progress from newest to oldest throughout the list

Recent messages first

Date sequence accuracy

10

Test sort with large dataset

Sorting completes efficiently without performance degradation

100+ messages

Performance verification

11

Verify sort indicator visibility

Sort direction arrow/indicator clearly shows current sort state

N/A

User interface clarity

12

Test sort state persistence

Sort order maintained during filtering operations

Apply filters while sorted

Sort state persistence

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Date column is sortable in both ascending and descending order with accurate chronological arrangement
  • Secondary_Verifications: Sort indicator shows current sort direction, performance remains acceptable
  • Negative_Verification: Sort doesn't break chronological order or cause performance 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: Weekly
  • Maintenance_Effort: Low
  • Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: Combined sort and filter scenarios
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_007 (date format)
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic sort before advanced sort scenarios

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Important for chronological analysis of communication patterns
  • Edge_Cases: Messages with identical timestamps, timezone considerations
  • Risk_Areas: Sort performance with large datasets, sort stability
  • Security_Considerations: Date information visibility based on user permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Secondary sort criteria when dates are identical
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Multiple messages sent at same time need consistent ordering
  • Priority: P4
  • Scenario_2: Sort indicator keyboard accessibility
  • Type: Accessibility
  • Rationale: Keyboard-only users need sort functionality access
  • Priority: P3




Test Case 7: DD/MM/YYYY Date Format Display

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_007

Title: Verify date format display as DD/MM/YYYY for improved readability across all message entries Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: UI
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P3-Medium
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Format], MOD-[MessageHistory], P3-[Medium], Phase-[Regression], Type-[UI], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Cross-Browser-Results, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[Medium], Revenue-Impact-[Low], Integration-[Date-Formatter], Date-Format, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Low
  • Business_Priority: Could-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics:

  • Risk_Level: Low
  • Complexity_Level: Low
  • Expected_Execution_Time: 2 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: Low
  • Failure_Impact: Low

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 5%
  • Integration_Points: Date Formatting Service, UI Display Components
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Cross-Browser-Results, User-Acceptance
  • Trend_Tracking: No
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Low

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Date Formatting Service, Locale Configuration
  • Performance_Baseline: Immediate display formatting
  • Data_Requirements: Messages with various dates for format verification

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Messages with different date ranges for comprehensive format testing
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access
  • Test_Data: Recent messages including Account Verification emails, historical communications spanning multiple months
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (message display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Message list displays with SENT column showing formatted dates

Various dated messages

Date display verification

2

Examine today's date format in SENT column

Today's date displays in DD/MM/YYYY format (e.g., 18/08/2025)

Messages sent today

Current date format

3

Verify current date format accuracy

Date matches expected DD/MM/YYYY pattern with correct day/month/year

Today's messages

AC7 - DD/MM/YYYY format

4

Examine recent dates (last week)

Recent dates maintain DD/MM/YYYY format consistently

Messages from last 7 days

Recent date consistency

5

Verify recent date format accuracy

All recent dates follow DD/MM/YYYY pattern without exceptions

Week-old messages

Format consistency check

6

Examine historical dates (last month)

Older dates maintain DD/MM/YYYY format consistently

Messages from 30+ days ago

Historical date consistency

7

Verify historical date format accuracy

All historical dates follow DD/MM/YYYY pattern without exceptions

Month-old messages

Format consistency check

8

Check date readability and clarity

Date format is easily readable and unambiguous

Multiple date samples

AC7 - improved readability

9

Verify date separator consistency

All dates use forward slash (/) as separator consistently

All message dates

Separator verification

10

Test cross-browser date format consistency

Date format remains DD/MM/YYYY across different browsers

Same messages in Firefox/Safari

Cross-browser consistency

11

Verify no alternative date formats

No dates appear in MM/DD/YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD, or other formats

Complete message list

Format exclusivity

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: All dates are displayed in DD/MM/YYYY format exactly as specified in AC7
  • Secondary_Verifications: Date format is consistent across all messages and time periods
  • Negative_Verification: No dates appear in other formats (MM/DD/YYYY, YYYY-MM-DD, or timestamp formats)

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: Planned

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: None
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_006 (date sorting)
  • Sequential_Tests: Can run independently

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Important for international users and consistent date interpretation
  • Edge_Cases: Timezone changes, daylight saving transitions, leap year dates
  • Risk_Areas: Locale configuration, browser date handling differences
  • Security_Considerations: No security implications for date format display

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Date format in exported reports
  • Type: Integration
  • Rationale: Exported data should maintain DD/MM/YYYY format consistency
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Date format accessibility for screen readers
  • Type: Accessibility
  • Rationale: Screen readers need proper date format announcement
  • Priority: P4




Test Case 8: Complete Message Content Viewing

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_008

Title: Verify ability to view complete message content including subject, body, recipient details when message is selected Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Content], MOD-[MessageHistory], P1-[Critical], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis, Engineering], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[Critical], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Content-Service], Message-Content, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • 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: 4 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: High
  • Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 20%
  • Integration_Points: Content Service, Message Database, UI Modal Components
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Content Service API, Message Database, UI Modal/Panel Components
  • Performance_Baseline: < 1 second content loading
  • Data_Requirements: Complete messages with full content, subjects, and recipient details

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Messages with complete content including subjects, bodies, and recipient information
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with content viewing permissions
  • Test_Data: Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com with complete subject and body content
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (message list display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Message list displays with clickable message rows and eye icon in ACTIONS column

Various complete messages

Verify row clickability per wireframe

2

Locate Account Verification email row

Email row visible with subject "Account Verification" and recipient robert.johnson@example.com

Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com

Test data identification

3

Click on Account Verification message row

Message details panel/modal opens displaying complete message information

Account Verification email

AC8 - message selection functionality

4

Verify complete subject display

Full subject "Account Verification" is clearly visible and not truncated

Complete subject line

Subject verification

5

Verify complete message body content

Full message content displays: "Please verify your utility account by clicking the link below..."

Complete email body with verification link

AC8 - complete content viewing

6

Verify recipient information display

Complete recipient details: robert.johnson@example.com clearly shown

robert.johnson@example.com

Recipient information verification

7

Verify timestamp details

Complete date and time information displayed in DD/MM/YYYY format

Full timestamp data

Time details verification

8

Verify message type identification

Message type (Email) clearly indicated in details view

Email message type

Type identification

9

Close message details view

Return to main message list, details panel closes cleanly

N/A

Navigation back functionality

10

Test SMS message content viewing

Click SMS message, complete SMS content and recipient phone number display

SMS usage alert message

Cross-type content testing

11

Test WhatsApp message content viewing

Click WhatsApp message, complete content and recipient details display

WhatsApp payment confirmation

WhatsApp content verification

12

Test Notification message content viewing

Click Notification message, complete content and recipient details display

System maintenance notification

Notification content verification

13

Verify content scrolling for long messages

Long message content is scrollable without truncation

Long email message

Content completeness verification

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Complete message content including subject, body, and recipient details is viewable when message is selected
  • Secondary_Verifications: All message components are displayed without truncation, content is properly formatted
  • Negative_Verification: No content is missing, truncated, or inaccessible in the details view

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: Planned

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: UX05US05_TC_010 (delivery history)
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_009 (recipient format)
  • Sequential_Tests: Message display before content viewing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for customer service representatives to access complete communication details
  • Edge_Cases: Very long messages, messages with special characters, HTML content
  • Risk_Areas: Content loading performance, content formatting accuracy
  • Security_Considerations: Message content access based on user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Message content copy functionality
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Users may need to copy message content for documentation
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Message content printing capability
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Physical records may be needed for compliance
  • Priority: P4




Test Cases 9: Consistent Recipient Information Format

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_009

Title: Verify consistent recipient information format across all message types (Email, SMS, WhatsApp, Notification) Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: UI
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Format], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[UI], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Cross-Browser-Results, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[Medium], Integration-[Recipient-Formatter], Recipient-Format, Happy-Path

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics:

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

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 10%
  • Integration_Points: Recipient Formatting Service, Contact Database
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, User-Acceptance, Cross-Browser-Results
  • Trend_Tracking: No
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Recipient Formatting Service, Contact Database, UI Display Components
  • Performance_Baseline: Immediate formatting display
  • Data_Requirements: Messages with recipients across all communication types

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Messages with varied recipient formats for each message type
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access
  • Test_Data: Email to robert.johnson@example.com, SMS to phone numbers, WhatsApp to phone numbers, Notifications to user IDs
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (message display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Message list displays with RECIPIENT column showing various recipient formats

Mixed message types with recipients

Recipient column verification

2

Examine Email message recipients in RECIPIENT column

Email recipients display in consistent email format: name@domain.com

robert.johnson@example.com, sarah.smith@utilityco.com

AC9 - Email format consistency

3

Verify Email recipient format consistency

All Email messages show recipients in identical email address format

Multiple email recipients

Email format verification

4

Examine SMS message recipients in RECIPIENT column

SMS recipients display in consistent phone format: +X-XXX-XXX-XXXX

+1-555-123-4567, +1-555-987-6543

SMS format consistency

5

Verify SMS recipient format consistency

All SMS messages show recipients in identical phone number format

Multiple SMS recipients

SMS format verification

6

Examine WhatsApp message recipients in RECIPIENT column

WhatsApp recipients display in consistent phone format: +X-XXX-XXX-XXXX

+1-555-789-0123, +1-555-456-7890

WhatsApp format consistency

7

Verify WhatsApp recipient format consistency

All WhatsApp messages show recipients in identical phone number format

Multiple WhatsApp recipients

WhatsApp format verification

8

Examine Notification message recipients in RECIPIENT column

Notification recipients display in consistent user ID or email format

USR-001, admin@utilityco.com

Notification format consistency

9

Verify Notification recipient format consistency

All Notification messages show recipients in identical format pattern

Multiple notification recipients

Notification format verification

10

Check recipient information alignment

All recipient information is properly aligned within the RECIPIENT column

Visual alignment across types

Layout consistency verification

11

Verify recipient text truncation handling

Long recipient information is handled consistently (truncation or wrapping)

Long email addresses and names

Truncation consistency

12

Test recipient format in message details view

Recipient format consistency maintained in detailed message view

Click various message types

Detail view format consistency

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Recipient information displays in consistent format for each message type across all instances
  • Secondary_Verifications: Format remains consistent in both list view and detail view
  • Negative_Verification: No recipient information is displayed in inconsistent, malformed, or mixed formats

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: UX05US05_TC_001 (unified interface)
  • Blocked_Tests: None
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_008 (message content)
  • Sequential_Tests: Can run independently after basic display

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Important for user experience consistency and professional appearance
  • Edge_Cases: Very long recipient names/addresses, international phone numbers, special characters
  • Risk_Areas: Format consistency across browsers, recipient data validation
  • Security_Considerations: Recipient information visibility based on user permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Recipient format in exported data
  • Type: Integration
  • Rationale: Exported reports should maintain recipient format consistency
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Recipient format with international numbers
  • Type: Edge Case
  • Rationale: International utility customers may have different phone formats
  • Priority: P4





Test Case 10 - Verify tracking and display of complete delivery attempt history

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_010

Title: Verify tracking and display of complete delivery attempt history for failed messages with timestamps and failure reasons Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: [Negative], [Communication Services], [Tracking, Database], MOD-[MessageHistory], P1-[Critical], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[All], Risk-[High], Business-[Critical], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Delivery-Tracking], Failed-Message-Tracking

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Must-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Support
  • Compliance_Required: Yes
  • SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

  • Risk_Level: High
  • Complexity_Level: High
  • Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: High
  • Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 25%
  • Integration_Points: Delivery Tracking Service, Message Status Database, Retry Logic Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Customer-Segment-Analysis
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Delivery Tracking Service, Message Status Database, Retry Logic Engine, Failure Logging Service
  • Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds delivery history loading
  • Data_Requirements: Failed messages with multiple delivery attempts and documented failure reasons

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Failed messages with complete delivery attempt history and failure reason documentation
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with delivery history viewing permissions
  • Test_Data: Failed Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com with multiple delivery attempts, documented failure reasons
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators working), UX05US05_TC_004 (status filtering working)

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page loads with failed messages visible with red status indicators

Failed message dataset

Failed messages identification

2

Apply "Failed" status filter

Only failed messages display with red status indicators

Failed status filter

Filter to failed messages per AC10

3

Locate failed Account Verification email

Failed Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com visible in list

Failed Account Verification email to robert.johnson@example.com

Target failed message identification

4

Click on failed Account Verification message

Message details panel opens showing complete failure information

Failed Account Verification email

AC10 - failed message selection

5

Verify delivery attempt history section

"Delivery Attempts" section displays with chronological attempt list

Multiple delivery attempts

Delivery attempt history verification

6

Verify first delivery attempt details

First attempt shows: timestamp, attempt number (1), failure reason

"Attempt 1: 15/08/2025 14:30:25 - Invalid email address"

First attempt documentation

7

Verify second delivery attempt details

Second attempt shows: timestamp, attempt number (2), failure reason

"Attempt 2: 15/08/2025 16:45:12 - Mail server unreachable"

Second attempt documentation

8

Verify third delivery attempt details

Third attempt shows: timestamp, attempt number (3), failure reason

"Attempt 3: 16/08/2025 09:15:33 - Recipient mailbox full"

Third attempt documentation

9

Verify total attempt count accuracy

Total delivery attempts count matches actual attempts made

"Total Attempts: 3"

Attempt count verification

10

Verify failure reason specificity

Each failure reason provides specific technical details for troubleshooting

Specific error messages per attempt

AC10 - failure reason documentation

11

Verify timestamp accuracy and format

All attempt timestamps in DD/MM/YYYY HH:MM:SS format with accurate timing

Chronological timestamps

Timestamp accuracy verification

12

Test different failed message types

SMS and WhatsApp failed messages also show delivery attempt history

Failed SMS and WhatsApp messages

Cross-type delivery history

13

Verify retry scheduling information

Next retry attempt time displayed if applicable

"Next retry: 17/08/2025 10:00:00"

Retry logic information

14

Test delivery history with single attempt

Messages with only one failure attempt show complete single attempt details

Single-attempt failed message

Single attempt scenario

Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: All delivery attempts for failed messages are tracked and displayed with complete timestamps and failure reasons
  • Secondary_Verifications: Failure reasons are specific and actionable, attempt counts are accurate
  • Negative_Verification: No delivery attempts are missing from the history, no generic or unclear failure reasons

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: Medium
  • Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators), UX05US05_TC_004 (status filtering)
  • Blocked_Tests: Failed message resend functionality
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_008 (message content)
  • Sequential_Tests: Status display before delivery history

Additional Information

  • Notes: Critical for operational efficiency in identifying and resolving communication failures
  • Edge_Cases: Messages with many retry attempts, different failure types, network timeouts
  • Risk_Areas: Delivery tracking accuracy, failure reason specificity, performance with many attempts
  • Security_Considerations: Delivery history access based on user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified

  • Scenario_1: Delivery attempt history export functionality
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Technical teams may need delivery logs for system analysis
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Delivery attempt history real-time updates
  • Type: Enhanceme




Test Case 11 -  Verify system behavior and performance with large message datasets 

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_011

Title: Verify system behavior and performance with large message datasets (10,000+ messages) Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Performance
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Performance
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Edge-Case], [Communication Services], [Performance, Database], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Performance], Type-[Performance], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Metrics, Engineering, Module-Coverage, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[Enterprise], Risk-[Medium], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[Medium], Integration-[Large-Dataset], Large-Dataset

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • 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: 8 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: Low
  • Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 5%
  • Integration_Points: Database Query Engine, Pagination Service, Performance Monitoring
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Performance-Metrics, Engineering, Customer-Segment-Analysis
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Large Dataset Generator, Performance Monitoring Tools, Database Performance Metrics
  • Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds page load with 10,000+ messages
  • Data_Requirements: 10,000+ message dataset with mixed types, statuses, and dates

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Large message dataset (10,000+ messages) pre-loaded for testing
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with full dataset access
  • Test_Data: 10,000+ messages including Account Verification emails, various message types across 12+ months
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (basic message display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page with large dataset

Page loads within 5 seconds showing first page of messages with pagination

10,000+ message dataset

Performance baseline verification

2

Verify initial page load performance

Message list displays efficiently with proper pagination controls

First page of large dataset

Large dataset handling

3

Test search functionality with large dataset

Search for "Account Verification" returns results within 2 seconds

Search across 10,000+ messages

Search performance with volume

4

Verify search result accuracy with large dataset

Search returns accurate results from across the large dataset

Account Verification emails from large dataset

Search accuracy verification

5

Test type filtering with large dataset

Email filter applied, results return within 1 second

Email messages from large dataset

Filter performance with volume

6

Verify filter result count accuracy

Filter shows accurate count of Email messages from large dataset

Email subset count

Count accuracy verification

7

Test status filtering with large dataset

Failed status filter applied, results return within 1 second

Failed messages from large dataset

Status filter performance

8

Test combined filtering with large dataset

Apply Email + Failed filters simultaneously, results within 2 seconds

Failed Email messages from large dataset

Combined filter performance

9

Test sorting with large dataset

Date sort operation completes within 1 second

Large dataset sorting

Sort performance verification

10

Test pagination navigation with large dataset

Navigate through multiple pages smoothly (pages 1, 10, 50, last)

Multi-page navigation

Pagination performance

11

Monitor browser memory usage

Memory usage remains stable, no memory leaks detected

Memory profiling during operations

Memory efficiency verification

12

Test export functionality with large dataset

CSV export of large filtered dataset completes within 30 seconds

Large dataset export

Export performance verification

13

Verify system responsiveness

UI remains responsive during all operations with large dataset

Overall system performance

Responsiveness verification

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: System maintains acceptable performance standards with large datasets (10,000+ messages)
  • Secondary_Verifications: All functionality remains responsive, no timeouts or errors occur
  • Negative_Verification: No system crashes, memory leaks, or performance degradation beyond acceptable thresholds

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: High
  • Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (basic functionality)
  • Blocked_Tests: None
  • Parallel_Tests: Other performance scenarios
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic functionality before performance testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for enterprise customers with extensive message histories
  • Edge_Cases: Very large datasets (50,000+ messages), concurrent large dataset access
  • Risk_Areas: Database performance, memory usage, browser limitations
  • Security_Considerations: Large dataset access respects user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Concurrent large dataset access by multiple users
  • Type: Performance
  • Rationale: Multi-user enterprise environment stress testing
  • Priority: P2
  • Scenario_2: Large dataset backup and restore performance
  • Type: System
  • Rationale: Data management operations impact on performance
  • Priority: P3




Test Case 12 -  Verify system behavior with invalid search inputs

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_012

Title: Verify system behavior with invalid search inputs and malformed queries Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Negative
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P3-Medium
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Negative], [Communication Services], [Search, Error-Handling], MOD-[MessageHistory], P3-[Medium], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Negative], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Security-Validation, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[Medium], Revenue-Impact-[Low], Integration-[Search-Validation], Error-Handling

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • 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: 4 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: Low
  • Failure_Impact: Low

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 5%
  • Integration_Points: Search Validation Service, Input Sanitization, Error Handling
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Security-Validation
  • Trend_Tracking: No
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Low

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Search Validation Service, Input Sanitization Engine, Error Handling System
  • Performance_Baseline: Error handling within 1 second
  • Data_Requirements: Standard message dataset for testing search validation

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Standard message dataset with search functionality enabled
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access
  • Test_Data: Normal message dataset including Account Verification emails, various message types
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_005 (basic search functionality working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Search functionality available and responsive

Standard message dataset

Baseline search availability

2

Enter special characters in search field

System handles gracefully without errors or crashes

Search: "!@#$%^&*()"

Special character handling

3

Verify special character search results

Appropriate "no results" message or filtered results shown

Special character search

Graceful handling verification

4

Enter SQL injection attempt in search

System prevents injection and returns safe results

Search: "'; DROP TABLE messages; --"

Security vulnerability testing

5

Verify SQL injection prevention

No database errors, system responds safely

Injection attempt handling

Security validation

6

Enter very long search string (500+ characters)

System truncates or handles appropriately without errors

500+ character search string

Long input handling

7

Verify long string handling

Search processes without errors, appropriate message shown

Long string response

Input length validation

8

Enter empty search after typing content

All messages display again, search reset properly

Empty search after content

Reset functionality

9

Verify empty search reset

Complete message list restored, no search artifacts remain

Full message restoration

Clean reset verification

10

Test search with only whitespace characters

System handles whitespace-only input appropriately

Search: "   " (spaces only)

Whitespace handling

11

Enter search with no matching results

Appropriate "no results found" message displayed

Search: "nonexistentterm123xyz"

No results scenario

12

Verify no results message

Clear, helpful message indicating no matches found

No results handling

User feedback verification

13

Test rapid successive search inputs

System handles rapid input changes without errors

Multiple rapid searches

Input handling stability

14

Verify search performance under stress

System remains responsive during rapid input testing

Stress test scenarios

Performance under load

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: System handles invalid and malformed search inputs gracefully without errors
  • Secondary_Verifications: Security vulnerabilities are prevented, appropriate user feedback provided
  • Negative_Verification: System doesn't crash, expose sensitive information, or allow security breaches

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: UX05US05_TC_005 (search functionality)
  • Blocked_Tests: None
  • Parallel_Tests: Other negative testing scenarios
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic search before invalid input testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Important for system security and user experience with invalid inputs
  • Edge_Cases: Unicode characters, different keyboard layouts, copy-paste scenarios
  • Risk_Areas: Input validation, security vulnerabilities, error handling
  • Security_Considerations: Prevention of injection attacks and data exposure

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Search input with international characters and Unicode
  • Type: Globalization
  • Rationale: International utility customers may use non-English characters
  • Priority: P4
  • Scenario_2: Search performance with malformed inputs under load
  • Type: Performance
  • Rationale: System stability under malicious or accidental input stress
  • Priority: P3




Test Case 13 -  Verify role-based access control and security validation

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_013

Title: Verify role-based access control and security validation for message history access Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Security
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Acceptance
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Security], [Communication Services], [Access-Control, Authorization], MOD-[MessageHistory], P1-[Critical], Phase-[Acceptance], Type-[Security], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Security-Validation, Engineering, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[All], Risk-[High], Business-[Critical], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Access-Control], Role-Based-Security

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • 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: 6 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: High
  • Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 15%
  • Integration_Points: Access Control Service, Authentication System, Role Management
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

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

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Access Control Service, Authentication System, Role Management Service
  • Performance_Baseline: Access control validation within 2 seconds
  • Data_Requirements: Role-specific message datasets for access testing

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Multiple user accounts with different roles configured
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Test accounts for CSO Manager, Billing Manager, Meter Manager, Utility Administrator
  • Test_Data: Role-specific messages, restricted communications, cross-departmental data
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Authentication system working

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Login as CSO Manager

Full access to Message History with all features available

CSO Manager credentials

Full access baseline

2

Verify CSO Manager access scope

Can view all message types and perform all operations

Complete message dataset

Full access verification

3

Login as Billing Manager

Access to Message History with billing-focused restrictions

Billing Manager credentials

Restricted access testing

4

Verify Billing Manager restrictions

Can only access billing-related messages and functions

Billing messages only

Access restriction verification

5

Attempt unauthorized access as Billing Manager

Cannot access meter-specific or general communications

Non-billing messages

Restriction enforcement

6

Login as Meter Manager

Access to Message History with meter-focused restrictions

Meter Manager credentials

Meter role testing

7

Verify Meter Manager restrictions

Can only access meter-related messages and functions

Meter messages only

Role-specific access verification

8

Attempt cross-role access

Meter Manager cannot access billing communications

Billing messages

Cross-role restriction

9

Test session timeout security

Inactive sessions automatically log out users

Extended idle time

Session management

10

Verify session timeout behavior

System redirects to login after timeout, no data exposure

Timeout scenario

Security validation

11

Test direct URL access attempt

Cannot access restricted content via direct URL manipulation

Modified URLs

URL manipulation prevention

12

Verify URL security

System redirects or shows access denied for unauthorized URLs

Security response

Direct access prevention

13

Test concurrent session management

Multiple sessions handled appropriately with role enforcement

Multiple browser sessions

Concurrent session security

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Users can only access message history data appropriate to their assigned role
  • Secondary_Verifications: Unauthorized access attempts are blocked with appropriate error messages
  • Negative_Verification: No privilege escalation possible, no data leakage between roles

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: Medium
  • Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: User authentication system
  • Blocked_Tests: UX05US05_TC_019-022 (role-specific tests)
  • Parallel_Tests: Other security testing scenarios
  • Sequential_Tests: Authentication before access control testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for B2B SaaS security compliance and data protection
  • Edge_Cases: Role changes during active sessions, temporary access permissions
  • Risk_Areas: Data exposure, privilege escalation, session management
  • Security_Considerations: Comprehensive access control across all message history features

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Role-based export restrictions
  • Type: Security
  • Rationale: Data export should respect role-based access controls
  • Priority: P1
  • Scenario_2: Audit logging for access control violations
  • Type: Compliance
  • Rationale: Security incidents need comprehensive logging for compliance
  • Priority: P2




Test Case 14 - Verify message history functionality across different browsers 

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_014

Title: Verify message history functionality across different browsers and platforms Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Compatibility
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Acceptance
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Cross-Browser], [Communication Services], [Compatibility, UI], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Acceptance], Type-[Compatibility], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Cross-Browser-Results, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage, Customer-Segment-Analysis], Customer-[All], Risk-[Medium], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[Medium], Integration-[Cross-Browser], Browser-Compatibility

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics:

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

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 10%
  • Integration_Points: Cross-Browser Compatibility Layer, UI Rendering Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: QA
  • Report_Categories: Cross-Browser-Results, Quality-Dashboard, User-Acceptance
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 115+, Safari 16+, Edge 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080, Tablet-1024x768
  • Dependencies: Cross-browser testing tools, Browser compatibility matrix
  • Performance_Baseline: Consistent performance across all browsers
  • Data_Requirements: Standard message dataset for cross-browser testing

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Access to multiple browsers and testing environments
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access across all browser environments
  • Test_Data: Account Verification emails, mixed message types for comprehensive testing
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Core functionality working in primary browser (Chrome)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Test in Chrome 115+ browser

All Message History functionality works correctly

Standard test dataset

Chrome baseline verification

2

Verify Chrome visual consistency

UI elements display correctly, status colors accurate

Visual design verification

Chrome UI verification

3

Test in Firefox 115+ browser

All Message History functionality works correctly

Same test dataset

Firefox compatibility

4

Verify Firefox visual consistency

UI appears consistent with Chrome, no rendering issues

Cross-browser visual comparison

Firefox UI verification

5

Test in Safari 16+ browser

All Message History functionality works correctly

Same test dataset

Safari compatibility

6

Verify Safari visual consistency

UI appears consistent, status indicators work properly

Safari-specific verification

Safari UI verification

7

Test in Edge 115+ browser

All Message History functionality works correctly

Same test dataset

Edge compatibility

8

Verify Edge visual consistency

UI appears consistent across all tested browsers

Edge-specific verification

Edge UI verification

9

Test search functionality across browsers

Search works consistently in all browsers

"Account Verification" search

Cross-browser search testing

10

Test filtering functionality across browsers

Type and Status filters work in all browsers

Email and Failed filters

Cross-browser filter testing

11

Test sorting functionality across browsers

Date sorting works consistently across browsers

Date column sorting

Cross-browser sort testing

12

Test message content viewing across browsers

Message details display correctly in all browsers

Account Verification email details

Cross-browser content testing

13

Verify performance consistency

Response times similar across all supported browsers

Performance comparison

Cross-browser performance

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: All Message History functionality works consistently across Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge browsers
  • Secondary_Verifications: Visual design remains consistent, performance is acceptable across browsers
  • Negative_Verification: No browser-specific errors, crashes, or functional limitations

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: UX05US05_TC_001-010 (core functionality)
  • Blocked_Tests: None
  • Parallel_Tests: Other compatibility testing
  • Sequential_Tests: Core functionality before cross-browser testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for ensuring consistent user experience across diverse browser environments
  • Edge_Cases: Older browser versions, mobile browsers, browser extensions
  • Risk_Areas: Browser-specific rendering issues, JavaScript compatibility, performance variations
  • Security_Considerations: Consistent security behavior across browsers

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Mobile browser compatibility testing
  • Type: Mobile Compatibility
  • Rationale: Users may access message history from mobile devices
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Browser extension impact testing
  • Type: Compatibility
  • Rationale: Common browser extensions may affect functionality
  • Priority: P4





Test Case 15 - Verify combined filtering functionality

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_015

Title: Verify combined filtering functionality (Type + Status filters applied simultaneously) Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Filter, Integration], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Integration-Testing], Customer-[All], Risk-[Medium], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[Medium], Integration-[Combined-Filters], Multi-Filter

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • 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: 4 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: Medium
  • Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 10%
  • Integration_Points: Combined Filter Service, Database Query Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Integration-Testing
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Combined Filter Service, Database Query Engine, UI Filter Components
  • Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds combined filter response
  • Data_Requirements: Mixed message dataset with various type/status combinations

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Message history with all combinations of types and statuses
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with filtering permissions
  • Test_Data: Failed Email messages, Delivered SMS messages, Pending WhatsApp messages, Sent Notifications
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_003 (type filtering), UX05US05_TC_004 (status filtering)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page loads with both Type and Status filter dropdowns visible

Mixed dataset

Verify both filters available

2

Apply Email type filter

Only Email messages display in table

Email messages only

Single filter baseline

3

Apply Failed status filter while Email filter active

Only Failed Email messages display (intersection of filters)

Failed Email messages only

Combined filter application

4

Verify combined filter accuracy

Table shows only messages that are both Email type AND Failed status

Failed Account Verification emails

Intersection verification

5

Change to SMS type filter (keep Failed status)

Only Failed SMS messages display

Failed SMS messages only

Filter combination change

6

Verify SMS + Failed combination

Table shows only messages that are both SMS type AND Failed status

Failed SMS messages

New combination verification

7

Change status to Delivered (keep SMS type)

Only Delivered SMS messages display

Delivered SMS messages only

Status change with type maintained

8

Apply WhatsApp + Pending combination

Only Pending WhatsApp messages display

Pending WhatsApp messages only

Third combination test

9

Clear Type filter (keep Status = Pending)

All Pending messages display regardless of type

All pending messages

Partial filter clear

10

Clear Status filter (restore Type = WhatsApp)

All WhatsApp messages display regardless of status

All WhatsApp messages

Reverse partial clear

11

Apply All + All combination

Complete message list restored

Full dataset

Complete filter reset

12

Test filter performance with combinations

Combined filtering completes within 2 seconds

Large dataset

Performance verification

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Combined Type and Status filters work together to show intersection of criteria
  • Secondary_Verifications: Filter combinations are logically correct and performant
  • Negative_Verification: Combined filters don't show messages outside the intersection criteria

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: Medium
  • Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_003 (type filtering), UX05US05_TC_004 (status filtering)
  • Blocked_Tests: Advanced search with filters
  • Parallel_Tests: Individual filter tests
  • Sequential_Tests: Single filters before combined filters

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for advanced user workflows requiring specific message subset identification
  • Edge_Cases: Filter combinations resulting in empty results, all combinations tested
  • Risk_Areas: Filter logic accuracy, performance with multiple criteria
  • Security_Considerations: Combined filter results respect user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Triple filter combination (Type + Status + Date Range)
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Advanced users may need date-bounded filtered results
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Filter state URL persistence
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Users may need to share filtered views via URL
  • Priority: P4




Test Case 16 - : Verify search functionality combined with active filters

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_016

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [Search, Filter, Integration], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Integration-Testing], Customer-[All], Risk-[Medium], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Search-Filter-Combined], Search-Filter-Integration

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • 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: High
  • Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 15%
  • Integration_Points: Search Engine, Filter Service, Database Query Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Integration-Testing
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Search Engine Service, Filter Service, Combined Query Engine
  • Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds search with filters response
  • Data_Requirements: Searchable content with filterable attributes for comprehensive testing

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Messages with searchable content and filterable attributes
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with search and filter permissions
  • Test_Data: Account Verification emails (searchable), Failed Email messages, robert.johnson@example.com communications
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_005 (search working), UX05US05_TC_003 (type filtering working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page loads with search bar and filter dropdowns available

Mixed dataset

Verify search and filter availability

2

Apply Email type filter

Only Email messages display in table

Email messages only

Establish filter baseline

3

Enter search term "Account Verification" with Email filter active

Results show only Email messages containing "Account Verification"

Account Verification emails only

Search + filter combination

4

Verify search-filter combination accuracy

Results include both search criteria (Account Verification) AND filter criteria (Email)

Filtered search results

Combined criteria verification

5

Add Failed status filter to existing search + Email filter

Results show only Failed Email messages containing "Account Verification"

Failed Account Verification emails

Triple criteria combination

6

Verify triple combination accuracy

Results meet all three criteria: Email type, Failed status, "Account Verification" content

Highly filtered results

Complex combination verification

7

Change search term to "robert.johnson" (keep filters)

Results show only Email Failed messages to robert.johnson@example.com

robert.johnson@example.com emails

Search term change with filters

8

Verify recipient search with filters

Results include recipient criteria AND maintain active filters

Filtered recipient search

Recipient + filter combination

9

Clear search term (keep filters active)

Email Failed messages display (filters maintained, search cleared)

Email Failed messages

Search clear with filter retention

10

Clear Email filter (keep Failed filter and no search)

All Failed messages display regardless of type

All failed messages

Filter clear with retention

11

Re-enter search "invoice" with Failed filter active

Failed messages containing "invoice" display across all types

Failed invoice messages

Search restoration with filter

12

Clear all filters and search

Complete message list restored

Full dataset

Complete reset verification

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Search functionality works seamlessly with active filters, maintaining both search and filter criteria
  • Secondary_Verifications: Filter state persists during search operations, search state persists during filter changes
  • Negative_Verification: Combined search and filters don't produce results outside the intersection of all criteria

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: Medium
  • Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_005 (search), UX05US05_TC_029 (combined filters)
  • Blocked_Tests: Advanced search scenarios
  • Parallel_Tests: Individual search and filter tests
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic search and filter before combined testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for complex user workflows requiring both content search and categorical filtering
  • Edge_Cases: Search with no filter results, filters with no search results, empty intersection
  • Risk_Areas: Query performance, result accuracy, state management
  • Security_Considerations: Combined results respect user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Search autocomplete with active filters
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: User experience improvement for guided search within filtered context
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Saved search and filter combinations
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Workflow efficiency for repeated complex queries
  • Priority: P4




Test Case 17 - Verify message history pagination functionality

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_017

Title: Verify message history pagination functionality with navigation controls and page size options Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Happy-Path], [Communication Services], [UI, Pagination, Performance], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Regression], Type-[Functional], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage, Engineering], Customer-[All], Risk-[Low], Business-[Medium], Revenue-Impact-[Low], Integration-[Pagination-Service], Pagination

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Low
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics:

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

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 10%
  • Integration_Points: Pagination Service, Database Query Engine, UI Navigation Components
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance
  • Trend_Tracking: No
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Pagination Service, Database Query Engine, UI Navigation Components
  • Performance_Baseline: < 1 second page navigation
  • Data_Requirements: Large message dataset (100+ messages) for meaningful pagination testing

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Message history with sufficient data for multiple pages (50+ messages)
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access
  • Test_Data: Historical messages spanning multiple weeks including Account Verification emails and various message types
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_001 (message display working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page with large dataset

Page loads showing first set of messages with pagination controls visible

50+ messages dataset

Verify pagination necessity

2

Observe pagination information display

Shows "Showing X-Y of Z results" with accurate counts

Current page information

Per wireframe pagination info

3

Verify pagination controls presence

Navigation controls visible: Previous, page numbers, Next buttons

N/A

Navigation control verification

4

Verify first page state

"Previous" button disabled, page 1 highlighted, "Next" button enabled

Page 1 active

Initial pagination state

5

Click "Next" button

Navigate to page 2, page 2 highlighted, "Previous" now enabled

Page 2 content

Next navigation functionality

6

Verify page 2 content accuracy

Different set of messages displayed, pagination info updated

Page 2 messages

Content change verification

7

Click page number "3" directly

Navigate directly to page 3, page 3 highlighted

Page 3 content

Direct page navigation

8

Verify page jump accuracy

Correct page 3 content displayed, pagination info reflects page 3

Page 3 messages

Page jump verification

9

Navigate to last page

Last page content displayed, "Next" button disabled

Final page

End pagination state

10

Click "Previous" button

Navigate back one page, "Next" re-enabled

Previous page content

Previous navigation functionality

11

Test pagination with applied filters

Pagination works correctly with filtered results

Filtered dataset

Pagination + filter integration

12

Verify pagination performance

Page navigation completes within 1 second

Navigation timing

Performance verification

13

Test pagination state persistence

Page selection maintained during other operations

Sort/filter operations

State persistence

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Pagination controls work correctly for navigating through large message datasets
  • Secondary_Verifications: Pagination information is accurate, performance is acceptable
  • Negative_Verification: Pagination doesn't skip messages or show duplicate entries

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: Yes

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_001 (message display)
  • Blocked_Tests: None
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_011 (large datasets)
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic display before pagination testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Important for usability with large message histories in production environments
  • Edge_Cases: Single page of results, exactly full pages, very large datasets
  • Risk_Areas: Pagination performance, state management, count accuracy
  • Security_Considerations: Paginated results respect user role permissions

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Configurable page size options (10, 25, 50, 100 per page)
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: User preference for different data density views
  • Priority: P3
  • Scenario_2: Infinite scroll alternative to pagination
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Modern UX pattern for continuous data browsing
  • Priority: P4




Test Case 18 - Verify real-time message status updates 

Test Case ID: UX05US05_TC_018

Title: Verify real-time message status updates without page refresh functionality Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 18, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification:

  • Module/Feature: Message History Management System
  • Test Type: Integration
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Acceptance
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support: Tags: [Real-Time], [Communication Services], [Integration, WebSocket], MOD-[MessageHistory], P2-[High], Phase-[Acceptance], Type-[Integration], Platform-[Web], Report-[Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Integration-Testing, Performance-Metrics, User-Acceptance], Customer-[All], Risk-[High], Business-[High], Revenue-Impact-[High], Integration-[Real-Time-Updates], Real-Time-Status

Business Context:

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics:

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

Coverage Tracking:

  • Feature_Coverage: 15%
  • Integration_Points: Real-Time Status Service, WebSocket Connection, Message Status Engine
  • Code_Module_Mapped: CX-Web
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting:

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Engineering, Integration-Testing
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability:

Test Environment:

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Real-Time Status Service, WebSocket Server, Message Delivery System
  • Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds status update propagation
  • Data_Requirements: Messages in various transition states for real-time testing

Prerequisites:

  • Setup_Requirements: Real-time status update system configured and active
  • User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager access with real-time monitoring permissions
  • Test_Data: Pending messages ready for status transition, Failed messages with retry attempts
  • Prior_Test_Cases: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators working)

Test Procedure:

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Message History page

Page loads with current message statuses displayed

Mixed status messages

Baseline status display

2

Identify pending message in list

Pending message visible with yellow status indicator

Pending Account Verification email

Target message for status change

3

Monitor pending message status

Observe message status without refreshing page

Pending message under monitoring

Real-time monitoring setup

4

Trigger status change externally

Initiate delivery attempt for pending message via system

External delivery trigger

Status change initiation

5

Verify real-time status update

Message status changes from Pending (yellow) to Sent (blue) without page refresh

Status change: Pending → Sent

Real-time update verification

6

Verify status indicator update

Color indicator updates from yellow to blue automatically

Visual indicator change

Visual update confirmation

7

Monitor sent message progression

Continue monitoring for delivery confirmation

Sent message monitoring

Continued status tracking

8

Verify delivery status update

Message status changes from Sent (blue) to Delivered (green) automatically

Status change: Sent → Delivered

Delivery confirmation update

9

Test failure scenario real-time update

Monitor message that encounters delivery failure

Message experiencing failure

Failure status monitoring

10

Verify failure status update

Message status changes to Failed (red) with real-time update

Status change: → Failed

Failure update verification

11

Verify delivery attempt history updates

Delivery attempt history updates in real-time for failed message

Updated attempt history

Historical data real-time update

12

Test multiple simultaneous updates

Monitor multiple messages updating simultaneously

Multiple status changes

Concurrent update handling

13

Verify update performance

Status updates appear within 5 seconds of actual status change

Update timing verification

Performance requirement validation

Verification Points:

  • Primary_Verification: Message status updates appear in real-time without requiring page refresh
  • Secondary_Verifications: Visual indicators update correctly, delivery history updates in real-time
  • Negative_Verification: Status updates don't lag significantly or require manual refresh

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: High
  • Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships:

  • Blocking_Tests: UX05US05_TC_002 (status indicators)
  • Blocked_Tests: Real-time notification scenarios
  • Parallel_Tests: UX05US05_TC_010 (delivery history)
  • Sequential_Tests: Basic status display before real-time testing

Additional Information:

  • Notes: Critical for operational monitoring and immediate awareness of communication failures
  • Edge_Cases: Network connectivity issues, WebSocket connection failures, bulk status updates
  • Risk_Areas: Real-time connection stability, update accuracy, performance impact
  • Security_Considerations: Real-time updates respect user role permissions and data access

Missing Scenarios Identified:

  • Scenario_1: Real-time update notification alerts
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Rationale: Users may need notifications for critical status changes
  • Priority: P2
  • Scenario_2: Real-time update connection recovery
  • Type: Reliability
  • Rationale: System should recover gracefully from connection interruptions
  • Priority: P3