Service & Support Management Test Cases - CSS01US08

Test Case 1: Portal Access and Five Service Cards Display

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_001
Title: Verify five service request cards are displayed on Service & Support portal landing page with proper workflow visualization
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, UI, Portal, MOD-ServiceSupport, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Smoke-Test-Results, Report-User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Low, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Portal, Consumer-Portal-Access, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Residential and Commercial utility customers)
Revenue_Impact: High (Digital adoption reduces call center costs by 70%)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Onboarding
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of portal display functionality
Integration_Points: Customer Portal, Service Catalog, Authentication Service
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, User-Acceptance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-4 (5 service cards display), AC-7 (4-step workflow display)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_002, CSS01US08_TC_003

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Customer portal authentication service, Service catalog system
Performance_Baseline: Page load < 3 seconds
Data_Requirements: Valid customer account (TC1711, Test_Ranii Sahiba)

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer portal access enabled, Service catalog populated
User_Roles_Permissions: Authenticated customer access (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, email: testranit@yopmail.com, password: TestPass123
Prior_Test_Cases: N/A (Entry point test)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to customer portal login page via direct URL	Login page displays with "Customer Portal Login" heading and input fields	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	Entry point validation
2	Enter valid customer credentials in username and password fields	Login form accepts credentials without validation errors	Username: TC1711, Password: TestPass123	AC-5 authentication requirement
3	Click "Login" button	Successfully authenticated and redirected to main dashboard	-	Session establishment
4	Click "Service & Support" menu item in main navigation	Service & Support page loads showing "Submit service requests, track their status, and manage appointments" subtitle	-	Navigation validation
5	Verify exactly 5 service request cards are displayed	Five service cards visible with icons: New Request (plus icon), Register Complaint (warning icon), Request Transfer (exchange icon), Request Disconnection (X icon), Request Reconnection (refresh icon)	Expected cards count: 5	AC-4 validation
6	Verify each card displays proper information	Each card shows: Title, Description, Blue action button with specific text	Card 1: "New Request" with "Submit a new service request", "Create Request" button	Card content validation
7	Verify "How Our Request Process Works" section is displayed	Process workflow section visible with 4 numbered steps and icons	Steps: 1. Submit Request, 2. Initial Review, 3. Expert Assignment, 4. Resolution	AC-7 validation
8	Verify process step descriptions are complete	Each step shows icon, title, and detailed description	Step 1: "Fill out the request form with detailed information about your issue or requirement"	Process transparency
9	Verify page layout is responsive and properly formatted	All elements aligned correctly, no overlapping content, consistent spacing	Screen resolution: 1920x1080	UI/UX validation
10	Verify footer information is present	Copyright notice and version information displayed	Expected: "Copyright © 2025 Smart360. All rights reserved	Version 1.0.0"

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Exactly 5 service request cards displayed with correct titles, icons, and action buttons
Secondary_Verifications: 4-step process workflow visible with complete descriptions, responsive layout maintained
Negative_Verification: No additional or missing service cards, no broken layout elements

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: N/A (Entry point)
Blocked_Tests: All service-specific workflow tests (TC_003-TC_020)
Parallel_Tests: Authentication security tests (TC_002)
Sequential_Tests: Individual service request flows

Additional Information

Notes: Core portal functionality ensuring customer access to all 5 service types as specified in user story
Edge_Cases: Browser compatibility, session timeout during navigation, network interruption scenarios
Risk_Areas: Portal availability directly impacts 80% digital adoption target and 70% call center volume reduction
Security_Considerations: Customer authentication required, session management, no unauthorized access

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Portal accessibility compliance testing for customers with disabilities
Type: Accessibility
Rationale: B2B utility SaaS must ensure WCAG compliance for all customer types
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Portal performance under concurrent user load (50+ simultaneous customers)
Type: Performance
Rationale: Peak usage times may impact portal responsiveness affecting customer satisfaction
Priority: P1

---

Test Case 2: Authentication Security and Unauthorized Access Prevention

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_002
Title: Verify robust authentication controls prevent unauthorized access to all service request functionality
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Security
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Security, Authentication, MOD-Auth, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Security, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Security-Validation, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-CSM, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-AuthSystem, Security-Testing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Security applies to all customer types)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Security breaches could impact customer trust and adoption)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Onboarding and Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Customer authentication data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of authentication security controls
Integration_Points: Authentication Service, Session Management, Authorization Service
Code_Module_Mapped: AUTH-Security
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Security-Validation, Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Engineering
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-5 (Authentication required before allowing request submission)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access), CSS01US08_TC_026 (Advanced security)

Test Environment

Environment: Security Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Authentication service, Session management, Authorization service
Performance_Baseline: Authentication response < 2 seconds
Data_Requirements: No active authentication session, test user credentials

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Clear all browser sessions and cookies, authentication service operational
User_Roles_Permissions: Unauthenticated user state
Test_Data: N/A (testing unauthorized access)
Prior_Test_Cases: N/A (Independent security test)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Clear browser cache, cookies, and local storage completely	Browser cache cleared, no existing session data	Browser: Chrome incognito mode	Ensure clean state
2	Navigate directly to Service & Support URL without authentication	Redirected to login page with "Authentication Required" message or access denied page	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	AC-5 validation
3	Attempt direct navigation to New Request URL without authentication	Access blocked, redirected to login page or 401 Unauthorized error	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	AC-5 validation
4	Attempt direct navigation to Register Complaint URL without authentication	Access blocked, redirected to login page or 401 Unauthorized error	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	AC-5 validation
5	Attempt direct navigation to Request Transfer URL without authentication	Access blocked, redirected to login page or 401 Unauthorized error	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	AC-5 validation
6	Attempt direct navigation to Request Disconnection URL without authentication	Access blocked, redirected to login page or 401 Unauthorized error	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	AC-5 validation
7	Attempt direct navigation to Request Reconnection URL without authentication	Access blocked, redirected to login page or 401 Unauthorized error	URL: https://consumer-staging.bynry.com/login/{tenant_alias}	AC-5 validation
8	Verify no service functionality is accessible without authentication	All service request functions blocked, appropriate error messages displayed	No access to any Create/Register/Request buttons	AC-5 validation
9	Test session timeout handling by waiting for session expiry	Inactive session expires and requires re-authentication after timeout period	Session timeout: 30 minutes inactive	Session security

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All 5 service request functions require authentication, unauthorized access completely prevented
Secondary_Verifications: Proper redirect to login page, appropriate error messages, session timeout enforcement
Negative_Verification: No unauthorized access to any service functionality, no security bypass possible

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: N/A (Independent security test)
Blocked_Tests: N/A
Parallel_Tests: Portal access tests (TC_001)
Sequential_Tests: Advanced security tests (TC_026)

Additional Information

Notes: Critical security test ensuring no unauthorized access to customer service functionality
Edge_Cases: Session hijacking attempts, malformed authentication tokens, concurrent session scenarios
Risk_Areas: Security vulnerabilities could compromise customer data and utility system integrity
Security_Considerations: Authentication bypass prevention, session security, proper error handling without information disclosure

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Multi-factor authentication testing for high-value service requests
Type: Security Enhancement
Rationale: Transfer requests with outstanding balances may require additional authentication
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Account lockout testing after multiple failed authentication attempts
Type: Security
Rationale: Prevent brute force attacks on customer accounts
Priority: P1

---

Test Case 3: Service Selection and Organization Validation - Enhanced

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_003
Title: Verify services are organized by utility type with color-coding and proper information display for water, wastewater, metering, connection, and maintenance categories
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, UI, Service-Selection, MOD-ServiceRequest, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ServiceCatalog, Service-Organization, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Residential and Commercial customers requiring utility services)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Service selection efficiency impacts customer completion rates)
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: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low (Service catalog data)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of service organization and display functionality
Integration_Points: Service Catalog System, Customer Portal, Pricing Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Service-Catalog-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Customer-Segment-Analysis
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-11 (Services organized by utility type), AC-12 (Service information display), AC-13 (Single service selection)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access), CSS01US08_TC_004 (Date validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Service catalog system, Customer portal, Pricing service
Performance_Baseline: Service catalog load < 2 seconds
Data_Requirements: Complete service catalog with all utility types, customer session (TC1711)

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Authenticated customer session, service catalog populated with sample data
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Service catalog with: new water connection (CAD 400.00), Test Service 2 (CAD 101.00), Test Service (CAD 110.00), Meter Burnt (CAD 1.00)
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access successful)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Service & Support portal from authenticated session	Portal page loads showing "Service & Support" heading and subtitle "Submit service requests, track their status, and manage appointments"	-	Starting from main portal
2	Click "Create Request" button (blue button with plus icon)	Service selection page loads showing "Create Service Request" heading and "Complete the following steps to submit a service request" subtitle	Button text: "Create Request"	Step 1 of 3-step process
3	Verify application progress indicator is displayed	Progress bar shows: Step 1 "Select Service" (active/blue), Step 2 "Service Details" (inactive), Step 3 "Review & Payment" (inactive)	Progress: 1 active, 2-3 inactive	Workflow transparency
4	Verify instruction text is displayed	Information box shows: "Browse and select the service you need. Use the search bar to quickly find specific services. Each service shows pricing and description to help you choose."	Instruction text with info icon	User guidance
5	Verify search functionality is available	Search bar with placeholder "Search services..." is visible and functional	Search placeholder text	Service discovery
6	Verify services are organized by utility type categories	Services grouped and color-coded by categories: Water (blue), Wastewater (green), Metering (orange), Connection (purple), Maintenance (red)	Expected categories: Water, Wastewater, Metering, Connection, Maintenance	AC-11 validation
7	Verify "new water connection" service displays complete information	Service card shows: Name "new water connection", Description "Detail Service description", Price "CAD 400.00", Category "NEW TEST", Select button	Service: new water connection, Price: CAD 400.00	AC-12 validation
8	Verify "Test Service 2" displays complete information	Service card shows: Name "Test Service 2", Description "this is service description test service 2", Price "CAD 101.00", Category "NEW TEST", Select button	Service: Test Service 2, Price: CAD 101.00	AC-12 validation
9	Verify "Test Service" displays complete information	Service card shows: Name "Test Service", Description "this is test service", Price "CAD 110.00", Category "NEW TEST", Select button	Service: Test Service, Price: CAD 110.00	AC-12 validation
10	Test single service selection mechanism	Click on "new water connection" card - card becomes selected (highlighted), other cards remain unselected	Service selection: "new water connection"	AC-13 validation
11	Verify "Select" button confirmation is required	Click "Select" button for chosen service - selection confirmed, "Continue to Details" button becomes enabled	Select button clicked	AC-13 validation
12	Test changing service selection	Click different service card, then click its Select button - previous selection cleared, new service selected	Change to: "Test Service 2"	Selection flexibility
13	Verify "Continue to Details" button functionality	Click "Continue to Details" button - advances to Step 2 (Service Details) with selected service information	Selected service: carries forward to next step	Workflow progression

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Services properly organized by utility type with color-coding, complete information displayed (name, description, price, category)
Secondary_Verifications: Single selection enforced, Select button confirmation required, search functionality available
Negative_Verification: Cannot proceed without selecting a service and clicking Select button, cannot select multiple services simultaneously

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: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_004 (Date validation), CSS01US08_TC_005 (Payment method)
Parallel_Tests: Authentication tests
Sequential_Tests: Service details form validation

Additional Information

Notes: Critical service selection functionality ensuring customers can efficiently find and select appropriate utility services
Edge_Cases: Large service catalogs, search with no results, service availability changes, pricing updates during session
Risk_Areas: Service selection affects completion rates and customer satisfaction, impacts 80% digital adoption target
Security_Considerations: Service pricing integrity, catalog data consistency, user session management

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Service search functionality with various search terms and filters
Type: Functional Enhancement
Rationale: Search capability mentioned in user story instruction text but not fully tested
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Service availability status handling (services temporarily unavailable)
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Real-world scenario where services may be temporarily unavailable for maintenance
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 4: Service Catalog API Testing

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_004
Title: Verify API service catalog retrieval functionality with proper error handling and data validation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, API, Service-Catalog, MOD-ServiceRequest, P1-Critical, Phase-Integration, Type-API, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-ServiceCatalog, API-Testing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (API supports all customer service interactions)
Revenue_Impact: High (API failure blocks all service requests affecting revenue)
Business_Priority: Must-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: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Service pricing and catalog data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of service catalog API endpoints
Integration_Points: Service Catalog API, Pricing Service API, Customer Authentication API
Code_Module_Mapped: API-ServiceCatalog
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, API-Test-Results, Integration-Testing, Performance-Metrics
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-11 (Service organization), AC-12 (Service information), API critical operation (≥7 importance)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection UI), CSS01US08_TC_030 (External integrations)

Test Environment

Environment: Integration Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (for API testing tools)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Service Catalog API, Authentication API, Database system
Performance_Baseline: API response < 500ms for critical operations
Data_Requirements: Valid API authentication tokens, complete service catalog data

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: API test environment configured, valid authentication tokens available
User_Roles_Permissions: API access with customer authentication scope
Test_Data: API endpoint: /api/v1/services/catalog, Authentication token for TC1711, Service IDs: SRV001, SRV002, SRV003
Prior_Test_Cases: Authentication API validation successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Send GET request to service catalog API endpoint with valid authentication	API responds with HTTP 200 status and complete service catalog data in JSON format	GET /api/v1/services/catalog, Authorization: Bearer {valid_token}	API critical operation ≥7
2	Validate response contains all required service fields	Response includes: service_id, name, description, price, currency, category, availability_status for each service	Expected fields: id, name, description, price, currency="CAD", category, status	API data validation
3	Verify service data matches expected sample data	API returns correct service information including "new water connection" with price CAD 400.00	Service data: {id: "SRV001", name: "new water connection", price: 400.00, currency: "CAD"}	Data consistency
4	Test API response time performance	API response time is under 500ms for service catalog retrieval	Response time target: < 500ms	Performance validation
5	Send GET request with invalid authentication token	API responds with HTTP 401 Unauthorized and appropriate error message	GET /api/v1/services/catalog, Authorization: Bearer {invalid_token}	Security validation
6	Test API with malformed request parameters	API responds with HTTP 400 Bad Request and validation error details	GET /api/v1/services/catalog?category=invalid_category	Error handling
7	Verify API pagination functionality for large catalogs	API supports pagination with page size limits and total count information	GET /api/v1/services/catalog?page=1&limit=10	Pagination support
8	Test API filtering by service category	API correctly filters services by utility type categories	GET /api/v1/services/catalog?category=Water	Filtering functionality
9	Send concurrent API requests to test load handling	API handles multiple simultaneous requests without degradation	10 concurrent requests with response time monitoring	Load testing
10	Verify API error handling for database unavailability	API responds gracefully with HTTP 503 Service Unavailable when database is down	Simulate database connection failure	Error resilience

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: API returns complete service catalog with correct data structure and performance under 500ms
Secondary_Verifications: Authentication enforced, error handling graceful, pagination and filtering work correctly
Negative_Verification: Invalid requests properly rejected, unauthorized access prevented, graceful degradation under failure

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: Authentication API tests
Blocked_Tests: Service selection UI tests
Parallel_Tests: Other API endpoint tests
Sequential_Tests: Service submission API tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical API supporting all service selection functionality, must maintain high availability and performance
Edge_Cases: Large catalog sizes, network latency, database connection issues, concurrent user load
Risk_Areas: API failure blocks all customer service interactions, affects 80% digital adoption target
Security_Considerations: API authentication, data encryption in transit, rate limiting, input validation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: API rate limiting testing to prevent abuse
Type: Security
Rationale: Protect API from excessive requests that could impact system performance
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: API caching mechanism validation for improved performance
Type: Performance
Rationale: Cached responses improve user experience and reduce server load
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 5: Date Format Validation and Past Date Prevention

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_005
Title: Verify preferred date field enforces MM/DD/YYYY format and prevents past date selection with appropriate error messaging
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Validation, Date-Handling, MOD-ServiceRequest, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-CSM, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Low, Integration-DateValidation, Data-Validation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Date validation applies to all service scheduling)
Revenue_Impact: Low (Validation improves data quality but doesn't directly impact revenue)
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

Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low (Date information)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of date validation functionality
Integration_Points: Date Validation Service, Form Validation Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Validation-DateHandling
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-14 (MM/DD/YYYY format enforcement), AC-14 (Past date prevention)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection), CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment methods)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Date validation service, Form validation engine
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 200ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, selected service from previous step

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, service selected in previous step
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Selected service: "new water connection" (CAD 400.00), Current date: August 14, 2025
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection completed)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Service Details step after service selection	Service details form displays with "Service Details" heading and "Review selected service and configure scheduling preferences" subtitle	-	Step 2 of 3-step workflow
2	Verify application progress shows step 2 active	Progress indicator shows: Step 1 "Select Service" (completed/checkmark), Step 2 "Service Details" (active/blue), Step 3 "Review & Payment" (inactive)	Progress: Step 2 active	Workflow progression
3	Locate "Preferred Date (Optional)" field	Date field visible with placeholder "dd-mm-yyyy" and helper text "Leave blank for earliest available date"	Field label: "Preferred Date (Optional)" with info icon	AC-14 format requirement
4	Verify date field format placeholder	Field shows MM/DD/YYYY format expectation through placeholder and date picker icon	Placeholder: "dd-mm-yyyy" with calendar icon	AC-14 validation
5	Attempt to manually enter past date	Type yesterday's date in text format - system should prevent entry or show validation error	Test date: "08/13/2025" (yesterday)	AC-14 validation
6	Verify error message for past date entry	Clear error message displayed: "Date cannot be in the past. Please select a future date."	Error text appears below field in red	AC-14 validation
7	Use date picker to attempt past date selection	Click date picker icon, attempt to select past date - past dates should be disabled/grayed out	Date picker: past dates disabled	AC-14 validation
8	Enter valid future date using date picker	Select valid future date - date accepted and field populated correctly	Test date: "08/20/2025" (6 days future)	AC-14 validation
9	Test invalid date format entry	Enter date in wrong format - system should show format validation error	Invalid formats: "2025/08/20", "20-08-2025", "Aug 20, 2025"	AC-14 validation
10	Verify field optional behavior	Leave date field blank and proceed - system accepts blank date without error	Empty field should be valid	AC-14 validation
11	Test edge case: today's date	Enter today's date - should be accepted as valid	Test date: "08/14/2025" (today)	Boundary testing
12	Verify date persistence when navigating	Enter valid date, navigate back to Step 1, return to Step 2 - date should be preserved	Date: "08/20/2025" persists	Data persistence

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: MM/DD/YYYY format enforced, past dates prevented with clear error messages
Secondary_Verifications: Date picker functionality, field optional behavior, data persistence across navigation
Negative_Verification: Invalid formats rejected, past dates blocked, appropriate error messaging displayed

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: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment method selection)
Parallel_Tests: Time slot validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Form completion and submission tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation ensuring customers can only schedule services for appropriate future dates
Edge_Cases: Leap year dates, year boundaries, timezone considerations, daylight saving time changes
Risk_Areas: Poor date validation affects service scheduling accuracy and customer experience
Security_Considerations: Input validation prevents malformed date data, protects against injection attacks

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Timezone handling for customers in different time zones
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Utility customers may be in different time zones requiring proper date interpretation
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Date availability checking against service calendar
Type: Integration
Rationale: Selected dates should be validated against actual service availability
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 6: Payment Method Selection and Gateway Integration

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_006
Title: Verify three payment methods available with online payment gateway redirection and proper validation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Payment, Integration, MOD-Payment, P1-Critical, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Report-Performance-Metrics, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-PaymentGateway, Payment-Processing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Payment processing affects all customers using online payment option)
Revenue_Impact: High (Payment failures directly impact revenue collection and customer experience)
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: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Payment and financial data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of payment method selection and gateway integration
Integration_Points: Payment Gateway API, Financial Processing System, Security Validation Service
Code_Module_Mapped: Payment-Integration-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, API-Test-Results, Integration-Testing, Revenue-Impact-Tracking
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-16 (Payment methods available), AC-17 (Online payment gateway redirection)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_005 (Service details), CSS01US08_TC_007 (Request submission)

Test Environment

Environment: Integration Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Payment gateway service, Service pricing system, SSL certificates
Performance_Baseline: Payment gateway redirect < 3 seconds
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, completed service request form, test payment credentials

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, service selected and details completed, payment gateway configured
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Service: "new water connection" (CAD 400.00), Date: "08/20/2025", Time: "Morning (8:00 AM - 12:00 PM)"
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_005 (Service details completed)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Review & Payment step (Step 3)	Payment options page displays with service summary and payment selection area	Service: "new water connection", Amount: CAD 400.00	Final step of service request
2	Verify service information summary is displayed	Complete service details shown: service name, description, utility service type, charges, preferred date, time slot	Service details read-only display	Service confirmation
3	Verify payment timing options are available	Two payment timing options: "Pay Now" (Process payment immediately), "Pay Later" (Pay within 7 days)	Payment timing selection required	AC-16 validation
4	Verify payment method selection options	Payment method dropdown shows: "Online", "Cheque", "On service completion"	Three payment methods available	AC-16 validation
5	Verify payment method selection is mandatory	Cannot proceed without selecting both payment timing and payment method	Attempt to submit without selection - should be blocked	AC-16 validation
6	Select "Pay Now" and "Online" payment method	Both options selected, payment information area becomes active	Selection: Pay Now + Online method	AC-16 validation
7	Verify terms and conditions checkbox	"I agree to the terms and conditions" checkbox appears with link to terms	Terms acceptance required	Legal requirement
8	Check terms and conditions checkbox	Checkbox checked, "Submit Request" button becomes enabled	Terms accepted	AC-16 validation
9	Click "Submit Request" button	Secure redirect to payment gateway with correct amount and merchant details	Redirect to payment processor with Amount: CAD 400.00	AC-17 validation
10	Verify payment gateway loads correctly	External payment interface displays with service amount, merchant name, secure connection indicator	Payment gateway: CAD 400.00, SSL secured	AC-17 validation
11	Test "Pay Later" option selection	Select "Pay Later" - no immediate payment gateway redirect, request submitted with pending payment status	Payment method: Pay Later + Cheque	Alternative payment flow
12	Verify "On service completion" payment method	Select "On service completion" - request submitted without immediate payment, appropriate status displayed	Payment: On service completion	Service-based payment

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Three payment methods available (Online, Cheque, On service completion), online selection redirects to secure gateway
Secondary_Verifications: Payment timing options work, mandatory selection enforced, terms acceptance required
Negative_Verification: Cannot proceed without payment method selection, secure payment processing enforced

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: CSS01US08_TC_005 (Service details completion)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_007 (Request submission and receipt)
Parallel_Tests: Security validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Payment processing validation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical payment integration ensuring secure and flexible payment options for utility service requests
Edge_Cases: Payment gateway timeouts, network interruptions during redirect, invalid payment methods, currency conversion
Risk_Areas: Payment failures impact revenue collection and customer satisfaction, security vulnerabilities could compromise financial data
Security_Considerations: PCI DSS compliance, SSL encryption, secure redirects, no local payment data storage

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Payment method availability based on service type and amount
Type: Business Logic
Rationale: High-value services may require specific payment methods for security
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Payment gateway failover and backup processor handling
Type: Resilience
Rationale: Ensure payment processing continuity if primary gateway fails
Priority: P1

---

Test Case 7: Service Request Number Generation and Receipt Creation

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_007
Title: Verify service request number generation in SR-###### format and complete receipt creation with download/print functionality
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Request-Generation, Receipt-Processing, MOD-ServiceRequest, P1-Critical, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-Database, Request-Tracking

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Request tracking essential for all customer types)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Request tracking improves customer satisfaction and service efficiency)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Customer request and service data)
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of request ID generation and receipt functionality
Integration_Points: ID Generation Service, Receipt Generation Service, Database System, Email Service
Code_Module_Mapped: Request-Processing-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-18 (SR-###### format), AC-19 (Receipt generation), AC-20 (Timeline information)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment method), CSS01US08_TC_008 (Email notifications)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: ID generation service, Receipt generation service, Database system, PDF generation
Performance_Baseline: Request submission < 3 seconds, receipt generation < 2 seconds
Data_Requirements: Valid completed service request ready for submission

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, complete service request form, payment method selected
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Service: "new water connection" (CAD 400.00), Date: "08/20/2025", Payment: Online method selected
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment method selected)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete all required service request fields	All mandatory fields populated and validated	Service: "new water connection", Date: "08/20/2025", Payment: Online, Terms: Accepted	Ready for submission
2	Click "Submit Request" button	Request processing initiated, loading indicator displayed	Submit button clicked	Request initiation
3	Verify service request number generation	Unique service request number generated in SR-###### format (6 digits)	Expected format: SR-123456	AC-18 validation
4	Verify request number uniqueness	Each submission generates unique sequential number	Compare with previous requests if available	AC-18 validation
5	Verify receipt page loads with complete information	Receipt displays with "SERVICE REQUEST RECEIPT" heading and all request details	Receipt page with complete service information	AC-19 validation
6	Verify receipt contains service request number	SR-###### number prominently displayed at top of receipt	Service Request Number: SR-123456	AC-19 validation
7	Verify receipt contains customer information	Customer details: Name "Test_Ranii Sahiba", Account "TC1711", Email, Phone, Service Address	Customer info auto-populated from account	AC-19 validation
8	Verify receipt contains complete service details	Service information: Name, Description, Utility Service Type, Service Charge, Preferred Date, Time	All entered service details displayed	AC-19 validation
9	Verify receipt contains timeline information	Next steps with specific timelines: Email confirmation (24 hours), Service rep contact (2-3 business days), Service completion (3-5 business days)	Timeline: 24hr email, 2-3 days contact, 3-5 days completion	AC-20 validation
10	Verify receipt contains contact information	Customer service details with phone numbers, email addresses, and business hours	Contact info for customer support and emergency services	AC-20 validation
11	Test receipt download functionality	Click "Download Receipt" button - PDF receipt downloads with all information	Receipt downloaded as PDF file	Receipt management
12	Test receipt print functionality	Click "Print Receipt" button - print dialog opens with properly formatted receipt	Print preview displays correctly	Receipt management
13	Verify "Return to Dashboard" option	"Return to Dashboard" button navigates back to main portal with request visible in history	Request appears in customer history	Navigation completion

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Service request number generated in correct SR-###### format, complete receipt created with all information
Secondary_Verifications: Timeline information accurate, download/print functionality works, contact information complete
Negative_Verification: No duplicate request numbers generated, receipt contains all required information

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: CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment method selection)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_008 (Email notifications)
Parallel_Tests: Database validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Request tracking and status update tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical functionality ensuring customers receive proper confirmation and tracking capability for service requests
Edge_Cases: Concurrent request submissions, receipt generation failures, PDF creation issues, large volumes of simultaneous requests
Risk_Areas: Request number generation failures prevent request tracking, receipt issues affect customer confidence
Security_Considerations: Request ID security, receipt data protection, audit trail creation, no sensitive data in receipts

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Request number collision detection and resolution
Type: Data Integrity
Rationale: Ensure no duplicate request numbers even under high concurrent load
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Receipt template customization for different service types
Type: Business Enhancement
Rationale: Different utility services may require specific information in receipts
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 8: Complaint Category Dynamic Loading and Priority Mapping

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_008
Title: Verify complaint category dropdown with dynamic subcategory loading and automatic priority assignment based on category selection
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Complaint, Dynamic-Loading, MOD-Complaint, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Report-CSM, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ComplaintCatalog, Dynamic-UI

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Complaint functionality serves all customer types with issues)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Efficient complaint handling improves customer satisfaction and retention)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 7 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Customer complaint data)
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of complaint categorization and priority assignment
Integration_Points: Complaint Category Master, Priority Mapping Service, Dynamic Loading Service
Code_Module_Mapped: Complaint-Management-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: CSM
Report_Categories: CSM, Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Customer-Segment-Analysis
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-21 (Category mandatory and dynamic loading), AC-22 (Subcategory filtering), AC-25 (Priority auto-population)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access), CSS01US08_TC_009 (Incident date validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Complaint category master data, Priority mapping service, Dynamic loading service
Performance_Baseline: Dynamic loading < 1 second
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, complaint master data populated

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, complaint categories and priorities configured
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Categories: "Technical Complaint", "Billing Complaint", Subcategories: "Maintenance", "Installation", Priorities: "Medium", "High"
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access successful)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Service & Support portal	Portal displays with 5 service cards including "Register Complaint" with warning triangle icon	-	Starting point
2	Click "Register Complaint" button	Complaint registration form loads with "Create Complaint Request" heading and 3-step progress indicator	Button: "Register Complaint"	AC-21 setup
3	Verify Step 1 "Complaint Details" is active	Progress shows Step 1 active, instruction text: "Specify complaint category and details"	Progress: Step 1 "Complaint Details" active	Workflow validation
4	Locate category field and verify mandatory status	"Category" field visible with red asterisk (*) and dropdown arrow	Field label: "Category *"	AC-21 validation
5	Verify subcategory field initially disabled	"Subcategory" field visible but disabled with helper text "Select category first"	Field state: disabled	AC-22 validation
6	Click category dropdown	Dropdown opens showing categories from master data: "Technical Complaint", "Billing Complaint"	Categories loaded from complaint category master	AC-21 validation
7	Select "Technical Complaint" category	Category selected, subcategory field enables with filtered options for technical issues	Category: "Technical Complaint"	AC-21 validation
8	Verify subcategory options are category-specific	Subcategory dropdown shows: "Maintenance", "Service Issues", "Equipment Problems" (technical-specific)	Subcategories filtered for Technical category	AC-22 validation
9	Select "Maintenance" subcategory	Subcategory selected, complaint name field becomes available	Subcategory: "Maintenance"	AC-22 validation
10	Verify priority auto-populates based on category	Priority field shows "Medium" (auto-assigned for Technical Complaint) and is read-only	Priority: "Medium" (auto-populated, non-editable)	AC-25 validation
11	Test category change behavior	Change to "Billing Complaint" - subcategory resets, new options load, priority updates	Category change to: "Billing Complaint"	Dynamic behavior
12	Verify priority updates with category change	Priority automatically changes to "High" (for Billing Complaint) without user input	Priority auto-updates to: "High"	AC-25 validation
13	Verify complaint name field loads based on selections	Complaint name dropdown populated with options matching selected category and subcategory	Complaint names filtered by category + subcategory	AC-23 validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Category mandatory with dynamic subcategory loading, priority auto-populates and is non-editable
Secondary_Verifications: Subcategories filter by category, complaint names filter by category+subcategory
Negative_Verification: Cannot proceed without category, subcategory disabled until category selected, priority cannot be manually changed

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: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_009 (Incident date validation)
Parallel_Tests: Authentication tests
Sequential_Tests: Complaint workflow completion

Additional Information

Notes: Critical complaint categorization ensuring proper routing and priority assignment for customer issues
Edge_Cases: Large category lists, network delays during dynamic loading, category changes during form completion
Risk_Areas: Poor categorization affects complaint routing and SLA compliance, impacts customer satisfaction
Security_Considerations: Category data integrity, master data validation, injection attack prevention

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Complaint escalation rules based on category and priority combinations
Type: Business Logic
Rationale: High priority complaints may require immediate escalation per SLA
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Category performance analytics for complaint trend analysis
Type: Analytics
Rationale: Track complaint categories to identify systemic issues
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 9: Incident Date Validation and Business Rule Enforcement

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_009
Title: Verify incident date prevents future dates and enforces business rules with proper error messaging
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Complaint, Date-Validation, MOD-Complaint, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-CSM, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Low, Integration-DateValidation, Business-Rules

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Incident date validation applies to all complaint types)
Revenue_Impact: Low (Data quality improvement, indirect customer satisfaction impact)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Incident timeline data affects complaint resolution)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of incident date validation rules
Integration_Points: Date Validation Service, Business Rule Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Complaint-Validation-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-24 (Incident date cannot be future), AC-24 (Incident date mandatory)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_008 (Category selection), CSS01US08_TC_010 (Description validation)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution:# Enhanced Service & Support Management Test Cases

Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Date validation service, Business rule engine
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 200ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, complaint category selected

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, complaint category and subcategory selected
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Category: "Technical Complaint", Subcategory: "Maintenance", Current date: August 14, 2025
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_008 (Category selection completed)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to incident date field in complaint form	Date field visible with label "Incident Date *" and red asterisk indicating mandatory	Field label: "Incident Date *"	AC-24 mandatory field
2	Verify date field format and placeholder	Field shows date picker with dd-mm-yyyy format expectation	Placeholder: "dd-mm-yyyy" with calendar icon	Date format guidance
3	Attempt to enter future date manually	Type tomorrow's date - system should show validation error	Test date: "08/15/2025" (tomorrow)	AC-24 validation
4	Verify future date error message	Clear error message: "Incident date cannot be in the future. Please select the date when the incident occurred."	Error appears below field in red	AC-24 validation
5	Use date picker to attempt future date selection	Click date picker, future dates should be disabled/grayed out	Date picker: future dates disabled	AC-24 validation
6	Enter current date (today)	Today's date accepted as valid incident date	Test date: "08/14/2025" (today)	AC-24 validation
7	Enter valid past date	Past date accepted without validation errors	Test date: "08/10/2025" (4 days ago)	AC-24 validation
8	Test very old incident date	Enter date from several months ago - should be accepted with potential warning	Test date: "01/15/2025" (7 months ago)	Edge case testing
9	Test invalid date format entry	Enter date in wrong format - system should show format error	Invalid: "2025/08/14", "Aug 14, 2025"	Format validation
10	Attempt to leave field empty	Field validation should prevent form progression without incident date	Empty field - should show required field error	AC-24 mandatory validation
11	Verify date persistence during navigation	Enter valid date, navigate between form sections - date should persist	Date: "08/10/2025" maintained	Data persistence
12	Test edge case: midnight boundary	Enter date at day boundary to test timezone handling	Test various time scenarios	Boundary testing

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Future dates prevented with clear error messages, incident date mandatory for form submission
Secondary_Verifications: Date picker functionality, format validation, data persistence across navigation
Negative_Verification: Future dates rejected, invalid formats blocked, empty field prevents submission

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: CSS01US08_TC_008 (Category selection)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_010 (Description validation)
Parallel_Tests: Other complaint field validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Complete complaint submission workflow

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation ensuring accurate incident timeline for proper complaint processing and SLA compliance
Edge_Cases: Timezone differences, daylight saving time, leap year dates, system clock discrepancies
Risk_Areas: Incorrect incident dates affect complaint resolution timelines and SLA tracking
Security_Considerations: Input validation prevents date manipulation attacks, protects data integrity

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Incident date impact on SLA calculation and priority escalation
Type: Business Logic
Rationale: Older incidents may require different handling per service level agreements
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Bulk incident date validation for system-wide complaint processing
Type: Performance
Rationale: System must handle multiple concurrent complaint submissions efficiently
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 10: Description and Expected Resolution Field Validation

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_010
Title: Verify description and expected resolution fields with character limits, uniqueness validation, and content requirements
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Complaint, Text-Validation, MOD-Complaint, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-CSM, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Low, Integration-TextValidation, Content-Validation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Text validation applies to all complaint submissions)
Revenue_Impact: Low (Content quality improvement supports better complaint resolution)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Complaint content affects resolution quality)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of text field validation rules
Integration_Points: Text Validation Service, Content Analysis Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Complaint-TextValidation-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-26 (Description 10-500 characters), AC-27 (Expected resolution minimum 5 characters, different from description)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_009 (Incident date), CSS01US08_TC_011 (File upload)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Text validation service, Character counting service
Performance_Baseline: Text validation < 100ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, complaint details partially completed

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, complaint category, subcategory, and incident date completed
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Category: "Technical Complaint", Subcategory: "Maintenance", Incident date: "08/10/2025"
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_009 (Incident date validation)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to description field in complaint form	Description field visible with label "Description *" and character counter "0/500"	Field label: "Description *" with red asterisk	AC-26 setup
2	Verify minimum character requirement	Enter text under 10 characters - validation error should appear	Test text: "Short" (5 characters)	AC-26 validation
3	Verify minimum character error message	Error message: "Description must be at least 10 characters long"	Error appears below field	AC-26 validation
4	Enter text meeting minimum requirement	Enter exactly 10 characters - validation passes	Test text: "Water leak" (10 characters)	AC-26 validation
5	Verify character counter functionality	Character counter updates in real-time as text is typed	Counter shows: "10/500"	Real-time feedback
6	Test maximum character limit	Enter text approaching 500 character limit	Test text: 495-500 characters	AC-26 validation
7	Attempt to exceed maximum character limit	Try to enter 501+ characters - system should prevent or truncate	Test text: 501 characters	AC-26 validation
8	Enter valid description within limits	Complete description with proper detail about water pressure issue	Description: "Low water pressure in kitchen and bathroom on second floor for past 3 days. Pressure gauge reads 15 PSI when normal is 40-60 PSI. Issue affects both hot and cold water lines." (180 chars)	AC-26 validation
9	Navigate to expected resolution field	Expected resolution field visible with label "Expected Resolution *" and minimum 5 character requirement	Field label: "Expected Resolution *"	AC-27 setup
10	Test minimum character requirement for resolution	Enter text under 5 characters - validation error should appear	Test text: "Fix" (3 characters)	AC-27 validation
11	Attempt to copy description text to expected resolution	Copy exact description text - system should show uniqueness error	Copy description text exactly	AC-27 validation
12	Verify uniqueness validation error message	Error: "Expected resolution must be different from the description"	Uniqueness error displayed	AC-27 validation
13	Enter valid unique expected resolution	Enter resolution text different from description with minimum 5 characters	Resolution: "Please investigate pressure issue and restore normal 40-60 PSI water pressure within 48 hours" (99 chars)	AC-27 validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Description 10-500 characters enforced, expected resolution minimum 5 characters and must differ from description
Secondary_Verifications: Character counters work, real-time validation, appropriate error messages
Negative_Verification: Identical text in both fields rejected, character limits strictly enforced

Test Results (Template)

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

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_009 (Incident date validation)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_011 (File upload)
Parallel_Tests: Other text field validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Complete complaint submission

Additional Information

Notes: Essential text validation ensuring quality complaint descriptions for effective resolution
Edge_Cases: Special characters, Unicode text, copy-paste operations, auto-complete interference
Risk_Areas: Poor description quality affects complaint resolution efficiency and customer satisfaction
Security_Considerations: Text input sanitization, XSS prevention, content filtering

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Content quality analysis using AI/ML for complaint categorization assistance
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Automated content analysis could improve complaint routing and resolution
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Multi-language support for complaint descriptions
Type: Localization
Rationale: International utility customers may prefer local languages
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 11: Transfer Type Selection and Effective Date Validation

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_011
Title: Verify transfer type selection from master data with effective date validation ensuring future dates only
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Transfer, Date-Validation, MOD-Transfer, P1-Critical, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Report-Engineering, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-TransferCatalog, Transfer-Workflow

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Transfer functionality serves customers relocating or changing account ownership)
Revenue_Impact: High (Transfer efficiency affects customer retention and service continuity)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Customer account and transfer data)
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of transfer type selection and date validation
Integration_Points: Transfer Type Master Data, Date Validation Service, Business Rule Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Transfer-Management-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product
Report_Categories: Product, Engineering, Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-33 (Transfer type from master data), AC-34 (Effective date future validation)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access), CSS01US08_TC_012 (Account holder information)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Transfer type master data, Date validation service
Performance_Baseline: Master data load < 1 second, date validation < 200ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, transfer types configured

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, transfer types configured in master data
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Transfer types: "Account Transfer", "Service Location Transfer", "Ownership Transfer"
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Service & Support portal	Portal displays with 5 service cards including "Request Transfer" with exchange icon	-	Starting point
2	Click "Transfer Service" button	Transfer request form loads with "Create Transfer Request" heading and 3-step progress	Button: "Transfer Service"	Transfer workflow entry
3	Verify Step 1 "Transfer Details" is active	Progress indicator shows Step 1 active with instruction: "Enter the details of the transfer"	Progress: Step 1 "Transfer Details" active	Workflow validation
4	Verify transfer type field is mandatory	"Transfer Type *" field visible with red asterisk and dropdown indicator	Field label: "Transfer Type *"	AC-33 validation
5	Click transfer type dropdown	Dropdown opens showing transfer types from master data configuration	Available types from settings/transfer types	AC-33 validation
6	Verify transfer type options are loaded	Dropdown contains: "Account Transfer", "Service Location Transfer", "Ownership Transfer"	Transfer types from master data	AC-33 validation
7	Select "Account Transfer" type	Transfer type selected successfully, helper text updates based on selection	Selection: "Account Transfer"	AC-33 validation
8	Verify effective date field is mandatory	"Effective Date *" field visible with red asterisk and date picker icon	Field label: "Effective Date *"	AC-34 validation
9	Attempt to enter past date	Type yesterday's date - system should show validation error	Test date: "08/13/2025" (yesterday)	AC-34 validation
10	Verify past date error message	Error message: "Effective date must be in the future. Please select a date after today."	Error appears below field in red	AC-34 validation
11	Use date picker to attempt past date	Click date picker, past dates should be disabled/grayed out	Date picker: past dates disabled	AC-34 validation
12	Enter valid future date	Select future date - date accepted and field populated	Test date: "08/25/2025" (11 days future)	AC-34 validation
13	Test edge case: today's date	Enter today's date - should be rejected as not future	Test date: "08/14/2025" (today)	Boundary testing

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Transfer type selected from master data, effective date must be future date
Secondary_Verifications: Mandatory field validation, date picker functionality, helper text updates
Negative_Verification: Past dates rejected, today's date rejected, transfer type selection required

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: CSS01US08_TC_001 (Portal access)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_012 (Account holder information)
Parallel_Tests: Authentication tests
Sequential_Tests: Transfer workflow completion

Additional Information

Notes: Critical transfer initiation ensuring proper type selection and timeline planning
Edge_Cases: Transfer type availability based on account status, effective date business day validation, holiday considerations
Risk_Areas: Incorrect transfer types affect service continuity, improper dates cause billing issues
Security_Considerations: Transfer type access controls, date manipulation prevention, audit trail creation

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Transfer type availability based on account status and service type
Type: Business Logic
Rationale: Different account types may have different transfer options available
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Business day validation for effective dates excluding weekends/holidays
Type: Business Rule
Rationale: Utility transfers may only be processed on business days
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 12: New Account Holder Information Validation

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_012
Title: Verify new account holder fields validation including contact information format checking and relationship requirements
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Transfer, Contact-Validation, MOD-Transfer, P1-Critical, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Report-Engineering, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-ContactValidation, Data-Validation

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Account holder validation applies to all transfer requests)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Accurate contact information ensures proper account management and billing)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 7 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Personal contact information)
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of contact information validation rules
Integration_Points: Contact Validation Service, Email Validation API, Phone Validation Service
Code_Module_Mapped: Transfer-ContactValidation-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-35 (First/last name required), AC-36 (Email/phone validation), AC-37 (Relationship dropdown)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_011 (Transfer type), CSS01US08_TC_013 (Billing address)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Email validation service, Phone validation service, Contact validation API
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 500ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, transfer type and date selected

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, transfer type and effective date completed
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Transfer type: "Account Transfer", Effective date: "08/25/2025"
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_011 (Transfer type and date selection)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to New Customer Information section	Contact information fields displayed with "New Customer Information" heading	-	Account holder details section
2	Verify first name field is mandatory	"New Customer First Name *" field visible with red asterisk	Field label: "New Customer First Name *"	AC-35 validation
3	Verify last name field is mandatory	"New Customer Last Name *" field visible with red asterisk	Field label: "New Customer Last Name *"	AC-35 validation
4	Attempt to proceed with empty name fields	Validation errors should prevent form progression	Leave fields empty, try to continue	AC-35 validation
5	Enter valid first and last names	Names accepted without validation errors	First: "John", Last: "Smith"	AC-35 validation
6	Verify email field is mandatory	"New Customer Email *" field visible with red asterisk	Field label: "New Customer Email *"	AC-36 validation
7	Test invalid email format validation	Enter malformed email - system should show format error	Invalid: "invalid-email", "test@", "@domain.com"	AC-36 validation
8	Verify email format error message	Error message: "Please enter a valid email address"	Email format error displayed	AC-36 validation
9	Enter valid email address	Properly formatted email accepted	Valid: "john.smith@email.com"	AC-36 validation
10	Verify phone field is mandatory	"New Customer Phone *" field visible with red asterisk	Field label: "New Customer Phone *"	AC-36 validation
11	Test invalid phone format validation	Enter malformed phone number - system should show format error	Invalid: "123", "abc-def-ghij", "123-45-6789"	AC-36 validation
12	Verify phone format error message	Error message: "Please enter a valid phone number"	Phone format error displayed	AC-36 validation
13	Enter valid phone number	Properly formatted phone accepted	Valid: "(555) 123-4567" or "5551234567"	AC-36 validation
14	Verify relationship field is mandatory	"Relationship to Current Customer *" dropdown with red asterisk	Field label: "Relationship to Current Customer *"	AC-37 validation
15	Verify relationship dropdown options	Dropdown contains: "Spouse", "Child", "Parent", "Sibling", "Business partner", "Other"	Predefined relationship options	AC-37 validation
16	Select relationship "Spouse"	Relationship selected successfully	Selection: "Spouse"	AC-37 validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All contact fields required with proper format validation, relationship dropdown has correct options
Secondary_Verifications: Error messages clear and helpful, validation real-time or on field blur
Negative_Verification: Invalid email/phone formats rejected, empty required fields prevent progression

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: CSS01US08_TC_011 (Transfer type selection)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_013 (Billing address configuration)
Parallel_Tests: Other form validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Complete transfer workflow

Additional Information

Notes: Essential contact validation ensuring accurate new account holder information for successful transfer
Edge_Cases: International phone formats, multiple email addresses, special characters in names, relationship edge cases
Risk_Areas: Incorrect contact information causes transfer failures and communication issues
Security_Considerations: Contact data validation, PII protection, input sanitization, data privacy compliance

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: International contact format validation for global customers
Type: Globalization
Rationale: Utility companies may serve international customers requiring different format validation
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Contact information verification through external services
Type: Integration
Rationale: Real-time verification could improve data quality and reduce transfer failures
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 13: Offline Data Preservation and Network Recovery

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_013
Title: Verify comprehensive offline functionality with form data preservation, network detection, and seamless recovery capabilities
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Error Handling
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Error Handling
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Offline-Handling, Network-Resilience, MOD-ServiceSupport, P1-Critical, Phase-ErrorHandling, Type-ErrorHandling, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-CSM, Report-User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-NetworkHandling, Offline-Support

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Network issues affect all customers regardless of type)
Revenue_Impact: High (Network interruptions cause form abandonment affecting 80% digital adoption target)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium
Data_Sensitivity: High (Customer form data must be preserved)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of offline and network interruption scenarios
Integration_Points: Local Storage Service, Session Management, Network Detection Service, Data Sync Service
Code_Module_Mapped: Network-Resilience-Web
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: User story offline functionality requirement, AC-8 (Save Draft), AC-10 (Form data persistence)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_021 (Save Draft), CSS01US08_TC_022 (Navigation persistence)

Test Environment

Environment: Network Simulation Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Network simulation tools, Local storage service, Session management
Performance_Baseline: Data recovery within 5 seconds of network restoration
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, partially completed forms across all request types

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Network simulation tools configured, customer authenticated with active session
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Multiple partially completed forms: Service request, Complaint, Transfer
Prior_Test_Cases: Form workflows initiated (TC_003, TC_008, TC_011)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete service request form to Step 2 with substantial data	Form populated: Service "new water connection", Date "08/20/2025", Notes "Morning installation with side gate access"	Service data entered	Baseline form state
2	Simulate gradual network degradation using browser dev tools	System displays loading indicators, performance degrades gracefully, network status indicator appears	Network: Slow 3G (750kb/s)	Graceful degradation
3	Simulate complete network disconnection	System detects network loss, displays offline banner: "You're offline. Your progress is saved and will sync when you reconnect."	Network: Offline mode	Offline detection
4	Verify form data preservation during offline state	All entered dataReproducibility_Score: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of date validation functionality
Integration_Points: Date Validation Service, Form Validation Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Validation-DateHandling
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-14 (MM/DD/YYYY format enforcement), AC-14 (Past date prevention)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection), CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment methods)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Date validation service, Form validation engine
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 200ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, selected service from previous step

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, service selected in previous step
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Selected service: "new water connection" (CAD 400.00), Current date: August 14, 2025
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection completed)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Service Details step after service selection	Service details form displays with "Service Details" heading and "Review selected service and configure scheduling preferences" subtitle	-	Step 2 of 3-step workflow
2	Verify application progress shows step 2 active	Progress indicator shows: Step 1 "Select Service" (completed/checkmark), Step 2 "Service Details" (active/blue), Step 3 "Review & Payment" (inactive)	Progress: Step 2 active	Workflow progression
3	Locate "Preferred Date (Optional)" field	Date field visible with placeholder "dd-mm-yyyy" and helper text "Leave blank for earliest available date"	Field label: "Preferred Date (Optional)" with info icon	AC-14 format requirement
4	Verify date field format placeholder	Field shows MM/DD/YYYY format expectation through placeholder and date picker icon	Placeholder: "dd-mm-yyyy" with calendar icon	AC-14 validation
5	Attempt to manually enter past date	Type yesterday's date in text format - system should prevent entry or show validation error	Test date: "08/13/2025" (yesterday)	AC-14 validation
6	Verify error message for past date entry	Clear error message displayed: "Date cannot be in the past. Please select a future date."	Error text appears below field in red	AC-14 validation
7	Use date picker to attempt past date selection	Click date picker icon, attempt to select past date - past dates should be disabled/grayed out	Date picker: past dates disabled	AC-14 validation
8	Enter valid future date using date picker	Select valid future date - date accepted and field populated correctly	Test date: "08/20/2025" (6 days future)	AC-14 validation
9	Test invalid date format entry	Enter date in wrong format - system should show format validation error	Invalid formats: "2025/08/20", "20-08-2025", "Aug 20, 2025"	AC-14 validation
10	Verify field optional behavior	Leave date field blank and proceed - system accepts blank date without error	Empty field should be valid	AC-14 validation
11	Test edge case: today's date	Enter today's date - should be accepted as valid	Test date: "08/14/2025" (today)	Boundary testing
12	Verify date persistence when navigating	Enter valid date, navigate back to Step 1, return to Step 2 - date should be preserved	Date: "08/20/2025" persists	Data persistence

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: MM/DD/YYYY format enforced, past dates prevented with clear error messages
Secondary_Verifications: Date picker functionality, field optional behavior, data persistence across navigation
Negative_Verification: Invalid formats rejected, past dates blocked, appropriate error messaging displayed

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: CSS01US08_TC_003 (Service selection)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment method selection)
Parallel_Tests: Time slot validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Form completion and submission tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation ensuring customers can only schedule services for appropriate future dates
Edge_Cases: Leap year dates, year boundaries, timezone considerations, daylight saving time changes
Risk_Areas: Poor date validation affects service scheduling accuracy and customer experience
Security_Considerations: Input validation prevents malformed date data, protects against injection attacks

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Timezone handling for customers in different time zones
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Utility customers may be in different time zones requiring proper date interpretation
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Date availability checking against service calendar
Type: Integration
Rationale: Selected dates should be validated against actual service availability
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 14: Payment Processing API Integration

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_014
Title: Verify payment processing API handles all transaction scenarios with proper security, error handling, and audit trail creation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, API, Payment-Processing, MOD-Payment, P1-Critical, Phase-Integration, Type-API, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Report-Security-Validation, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-PaymentGateway, Financial-API

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Payment API supports all customer financial transactions)
Revenue_Impact: High (Payment processing directly impacts revenue collection and customer experience)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Financial and payment data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of payment processing API scenarios
Integration_Points: Payment Gateway API, Financial Processing System, Security Validation Service, Audit System
Code_Module_Mapped: API-PaymentProcessing
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, API-Test-Results, Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Security-Validation
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-16 (Payment methods), AC-17 (Payment gateway), API critical operation (≥7 importance)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_006 (Payment UI), CSS01US08_TC_007 (Receipt generation)

Test Environment

Environment: Payment API Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (for API testing tools)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Payment gateway API, Security services, Database system, Audit logging
Performance_Baseline: Payment API response < 3 seconds for transaction processing
Data_Requirements: Valid payment credentials, test transaction scenarios, audit logging capability

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Payment API test environment configured, valid merchant credentials, SSL certificates
User_Roles_Permissions: API access with payment processing scope
Test_Data: API endpoint: /api/v1/payments/process, Customer: TC1711, Amount: CAD 400.00, Test cards for various scenarios
Prior_Test_Cases: Service request submission API successful (TC_010)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Send POST request to payment processing API with valid transaction data	API responds with HTTP 200 OK and transaction confirmation including reference number	POST /api/v1/payments/process, Body: {request_id: "SR-123456", amount: 400.00, currency: "CAD", payment_method: "online", customer_id: "TC1711"}	API critical operation ≥7
2	Validate payment response contains required fields	Response includes: transaction_id, status, amount, currency, timestamp, gateway_reference, receipt_url	Expected response with all mandatory payment fields	Payment data validation
3	Test successful payment processing with valid test card	Payment processed successfully, transaction marked as completed	Test card: 4111111111111111 (Visa test card)	Success scenario
4	Verify payment API response time performance	API processes payment and responds within 3 seconds	Response time target: < 3 seconds	Performance validation
5	Test declined payment scenario with appropriate error handling	API responds with decline status and appropriate error code	Test card: 4000000000000002 (declined card)	Decline handling
6	Test insufficient funds scenario	API handles insufficient funds gracefully with specific error code	Test card: 4000000000009995 (insufficient funds)	Insufficient funds handling
7	Test payment timeout scenario	API handles timeout gracefully with retry mechanism information	Simulate gateway timeout	Timeout handling
8	Test payment API with invalid authentication	API responds with HTTP 401 Unauthorized for invalid credentials	Invalid API key or expired token	Security validation
9	Test payment amount validation	API validates amount ranges and currency format	Invalid amounts: negative, zero, excessive precision	Amount validation
10	Verify audit trail creation for all payment attempts	All payment attempts logged with customer, amount, status, timestamp	Check audit logs for payment records	Audit validation
11	Test concurrent payment processing	API handles multiple simultaneous payments without conflicts	5 concurrent payment requests	Concurrency testing
12	Test payment refund API functionality	Refund API processes reversal transactions correctly	POST /api/v1/payments/refund with valid transaction_id	Refund processing

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Payment API processes all transaction types correctly with proper response codes and audit trails
Secondary_Verifications: Performance targets met, security enforced, error handling graceful, concurrent processing supported
Negative_Verification: Invalid requests rejected, security controls effective, failed payments handled appropriately

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: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Service request submission API (TC_010)
Blocked_Tests: Receipt generation and email notification tests
Parallel_Tests: Security validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Financial reconciliation API tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical financial API supporting all payment processing for utility service requests, essential for revenue collection
Edge_Cases: Payment gateway failover, currency conversion, international cards, fraud detection triggers
Risk_Areas: Payment failures impact revenue and customer satisfaction, security vulnerabilities compromise financial data
Security_Considerations: PCI DSS compliance, encryption in transit and at rest, secure token handling, fraud prevention, audit compliance

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Payment fraud detection and prevention API integration
Type: Security
Rationale: Financial transactions require fraud monitoring to protect customers and business
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Payment reconciliation API for financial reporting
Type: Financial Compliance
Rationale: Automated reconciliation ensures financial accuracy and compliance
Priority: P1

---

Test Case 15: Request Status Tracking API

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_015
Title: Verify request status tracking API provides real-time status updates with proper milestone tracking and notification integration
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, API, Status-Tracking, MOD-ServiceSupport, P1-Critical, Phase-Integration, Type-API, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-StatusTracking, Real-Time-API

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Status tracking serves all customers with submitted requests)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Status transparency improves customer satisfaction and reduces support calls)
Business_Priority: Must-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: Medium (Request status and timeline data)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of status tracking API functionality
Integration_Points: Status Tracking API, Database System, Notification Service, Milestone Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: API-StatusTracking
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, API-Test-Results, Integration-Testing, Customer-Segment-Analysis
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-6 (Unique tracking ID), AC-7 (4-step workflow), API critical operation (≥7 importance)
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_007 (Request generation), CSS01US08_TC_016 (Email notifications)

Test Environment

Environment: API Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (for API testing tools)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Status tracking API, Database system, Notification services
Performance_Baseline: Status API response < 500ms
Data_Requirements: Valid submitted requests with various statuses, tracking IDs

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: API test environment configured, submitted requests available for tracking
User_Roles_Permissions: API access with status tracking scope
Test_Data: API endpoint: /api/v1/requests/status, Request IDs: SR-123456, SR-123457, Customer: TC1711
Prior_Test_Cases: Request submission successful (TC_007, TC_010)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Send GET request to status tracking API with valid request ID	API responds with HTTP 200 and complete status information	GET /api/v1/requests/SR-123456/status, Authorization: Bearer {token}	API critical operation ≥7
2	Validate status response contains all required fields	Response includes: request_id, current_status, status_history, estimated_completion, next_milestone, contact_info	Complete status data structure	Status data validation
3	Verify 4-step workflow status representation	Status shows current step: "Submitted", "Initial Review", "Expert Assignment", "Resolution"	Current status aligned with AC-7 workflow	Workflow validation
4	Test status API response time performance	API responds with status information within 500ms	Response time target: < 500ms	Performance validation
5	Test status tracking with invalid request ID	API responds with HTTP 404 Not Found for non-existent request	GET /api/v1/requests/INVALID-ID/status	Error handling
6	Test status API with unauthorized access	API responds with HTTP 401 for invalid credentials or customer mismatch	Request ID belonging to different customer	Security validation
7	Verify status history tracking	API returns complete chronological history of status changes with timestamps	Status history array with timestamps	History validation
8	Test milestone progression tracking	API shows progress through 4-step workflow with percentage completion	Progress indicators for each milestone	Milestone tracking
9	Verify estimated completion date calculation	API provides realistic completion estimates based on current status and SLA	Estimated completion dates within SLA bounds	Timeline estimation
10	Test bulk status retrieval for customer	API returns status for all customer requests in single call	GET /api/v1/customers/TC1711/requests/status	Bulk status API
11	Test real-time status updates via WebSocket	WebSocket connection provides real-time status updates when changes occur	WebSocket endpoint for live updates	Real-time functionality
12	Verify status change notification triggers	Status changes trigger appropriate notification events	Monitor notification service calls	Integration validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Status API provides accurate real-time status with complete workflow tracking and timeline estimates
Secondary_Verifications: Performance targets met, security enforced, bulk operations supported, real-time updates functional
Negative_Verification: Invalid requests handled properly, unauthorized access prevented, error responses appropriate

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: Request submission tests (TC_007, TC_010)
Blocked_Tests: Customer notification tests
Parallel_Tests: Database performance tests
Sequential_Tests: SLA compliance monitoring tests

Additional Information

Notes: Essential API providing transparency into request processing, critical for customer satisfaction and support efficiency
Edge_Cases: High volume status requests, concurrent status updates, long-running requests, status inconsistencies
Risk_Areas: Status inaccuracy affects customer trust, performance issues impact user experience
Security_Considerations: Customer data privacy, request access controls, secure status transmission

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Status change event streaming for real-time dashboard updates
Type: Real-time Processing
Rationale: Operations teams need real-time visibility into request processing status
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Status analytics API for business intelligence and reporting
Type: Analytics
Rationale: Business metrics and KPI tracking require aggregated status data
Priority: P2

---

Test Case 16: Email Notification Integration

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_016
Title: Verify comprehensive email notification system sends appropriate messages for all request types with proper templating and delivery confirmation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Email-Integration, Notifications, MOD-Notification, P2-High, Phase-Integration, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-CSM, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-EmailService, Communication-System

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Email notifications serve all customers across all request types)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Effective communication improves customer satisfaction and reduces support calls)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage and Support
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 15 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Customer contact and request information)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of email notification scenarios across all request types
Integration_Points: Email Service API, Template Engine, Database System, Request Processing System
Code_Module_Mapped: Integration-EmailNotification
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: CSM
Report_Categories: CSM, Integration-Testing, Customer-Segment-Analysis, User-Acceptance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-20 (Email confirmation within 24 hours), User story email notification requirements
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_007 (Request submission), CSS01US08_TC_015 (Status tracking)

Test Environment

Environment: Integration Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Email service API, SMTP server, Template engine, Database system
Performance_Baseline: Email delivery within 24 hours as per AC-20
Data_Requirements: Valid customer email addresses, email templates configured, SMTP connectivity

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Email service configured, SMTP server accessible, email templates loaded
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer email: testranit@yopmail.com, Submitted requests: SR-123456 (Service), Complaint ref, Transfer ref
Prior_Test_Cases: Request submissions across all types successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Submit service request with email confirmation enabled	Service request submitted successfully, email notification triggered	Request: "new water connection", Email: testranit@yopmail.com	Service request email
2	Verify service request confirmation email received	Email received with subject "Service Request Confirmation - SR-123456" within expected timeframe	Email subject contains SR number	AC-20 validation
3	Validate service request email content	Email contains: request details, timeline (24hr confirmation, 2-3 days contact, 3-5 days completion), contact information	Complete service information in email	AC-20 content validation
4	Submit complaint with acknowledgment option checked	Complaint submitted, acknowledgment email triggered immediately	Complaint with "Send acknowledgment to customer" checked	Complaint acknowledgment email
5	Verify complaint acknowledgment email received	Email received with complaint reference number and expected resolution timeline	Email contains complaint reference	Complaint email validation
6	Submit transfer request	Transfer request submitted, confirmation email sent with transfer details	Transfer with new account holder information	Transfer confirmation email
7	Verify transfer email contains financial information	Email includes outstanding balance transfer details and effective date	Balance transfer and timeline information	Transfer email content
8	Submit disconnection request	Disconnection request submitted, confirmation email with schedule information	Disconnection with preferred date and time	Disconnection confirmation email
9	Submit reconnection request	Reconnection request submitted, confirmation email sent	Reconnection with schedule details	Reconnection confirmation email
10	Test email delivery failure handling	Simulate email delivery failure, verify system handles gracefully without blocking request processing	Invalid email address simulation	Error handling
11	Verify email template consistency	All emails follow consistent branding, formatting, and contact information	Check logo, formatting, footer across all email types	Template validation
12	Test email unsubscribe functionality	Email contains unsubscribe link that functions properly	Test unsubscribe mechanism	Email management
13	Verify email audit trail creation	All email sending activities logged with timestamp, recipient, status	Check audit logs for email delivery records	Audit validation
14	Test email delivery status tracking	System tracks email delivery status (sent, delivered, failed, bounced)	Monitor email delivery status	Delivery tracking

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Appropriate emails sent for all 5 request types with correct content and within timeline requirements
Secondary_Verifications: Email template consistency, delivery failure handling, unsubscribe functionality, audit logging
Negative_Verification: Email failures don't block request processing, invalid emails handled gracefully

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: Request submission tests (TC_007 and others)
Blocked_Tests: N/A
Parallel_Tests: SMS notification tests (if applicable)
Sequential_Tests: Customer satisfaction survey integration

Additional Information

Notes: Critical communication system ensuring customers receive appropriate notifications and updates throughout request lifecycle
Edge_Cases: Bulk email sending, email server downtime, spam filter issues, international email delivery, mobile email clients
Risk_Areas: Email delivery failures impact customer communication and satisfaction, poor templates affect brand perception
Security_Considerations: Email content security, recipient privacy, anti-spam compliance, secure email transmission

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Email personalization based on customer preferences and history
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Personalized communications improve customer engagement and satisfaction
Priority: P3

Scenario_2: Multi-language email support for diverse customer base
Type: Localization
Rationale: International utility customers may prefer communications in local languages
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 17: Complete Customer Journey Validation

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_017
Title: Verify complete end-to-end customer journey from portal login through request completion with all touchpoints and integrations validated
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Acceptance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, End-to-End, Complete-Journey, MOD-ServiceSupport, P1-Critical, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Acceptance, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Complete-Workflow, Customer-Experience

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Complete journey validation covers entire customer experience)
Revenue_Impact: High (End-to-end success directly impacts 80% digital adoption target and customer satisfaction goals)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Complete experience from login to completion
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 25 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Complete customer and service data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of complete customer journey across all systems
Integration_Points: Portal, Authentication, Service Catalog, Payment Gateway, Email Service, Database, Audit System
Code_Module_Mapped: Complete-Customer-Journey
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: All ACs 1-60 (Complete workflow validation), User story business impact metrics
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: All component tests serve as building blocks for this comprehensive validation

Test Environment

Environment: Production-like Staging Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: All integrated systems operational (portal, payment, email, database, audit)
Performance_Baseline: Complete workflow under 10 minutes, each step under 30 seconds
Data_Requirements: Complete customer profile, full service catalog, payment gateway, email service

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: All system integrations operational, complete service catalog, payment gateway configured, email service active
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711 (Test_Ranii Sahiba), Email: testranit@yopmail.com, Complete service offerings
Prior_Test_Cases: All individual component tests validated and passing

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to customer portal and authenticate	Successful login, main dashboard displays with navigation options	URL: portal.utility.com, User: TC1711, Pass: TestPass123	Journey initiation
2	Access Service & Support section	Portal displays 5 service cards with 4-step workflow explanation	5 cards: New Request, Register Complaint, Request Transfer, Request Disconnection, Request Reconnection	AC-4, AC-7 validation
3	Initiate service request workflow	Service selection page loads with organized catalog by utility types	Click "Create Request"	Service request journey
4	Complete service selection with search and filtering	Select "new water connection" service with pricing CAD 400.00	Service selection with proper categorization	AC-11, AC-12, AC-13
5	Complete service details with scheduling	Enter preferred date "08/20/2025", time slot, and additional instructions	Service details: Date, time, special instructions	AC-14, AC-15
6	Complete payment method selection	Select "Pay Now" + "Online" payment method, accept terms	Payment method: Online payment selected	AC-16, AC-17
7	Submit request and receive confirmation	SR-###### generated, receipt displayed with complete information	SR number format validation, complete receipt	AC-18, AC-19, AC-20
8	Verify email confirmation received	Email confirmation with service details and timeline within 24 hours	Email to testranit@yopmail.com	AC-20 email confirmation
9	Initiate complaint workflow	Register complaint with category selection and priority auto-assignment	Click "Register Complaint"	Complaint journey
10	Complete complaint with dynamic category loading	Select Technical Complaint → Maintenance with auto-priority "Medium"	Category: Technical, Subcategory: Maintenance	AC-21, AC-22, AC-25
11	Enter complaint details with validation	Incident date, description (10-500 chars), expected resolution (unique from description)	Valid incident date, detailed description	ACScreen_Resolution:** Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Date validation service, Business rule engine
Performance_Baseline: Validation response < 200ms
Data_Requirements: Valid customer session, complaint category selected

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Customer authenticated, complaint category and subcategory selected
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level (Consumer/Customer role)
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711, Category: "Technical Complaint", Subcategory: "Maintenance", Current date: August 14, 2025
Prior_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_008 (Category selection completed)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to incident date field in complaint form	Date field visible with label "Incident Date *" and red asterisk indicating mandatory	Field label: "Incident Date *"	AC-24 mandatory field
2	Verify date field format and placeholder	Field shows date picker with dd-mm-yyyy format expectation	Placeholder: "dd-mm-yyyy" with calendar icon	Date format guidance
3	Attempt to enter future date manually	Type tomorrow's date - system should show validation error	Test date: "08/15/2025" (tomorrow)	AC-24 validation
4	Verify future date error message	Clear error message: "Incident date cannot be in the future. Please select the date when the incident occurred."	Error appears below field in red	AC-24 validation
5	Use date picker to attempt future date selection	Click date picker, future dates should be disabled/grayed out	Date picker: future dates disabled	AC-24 validation
6	Enter current date (today)	Today's date accepted as valid incident date	Test date: "08/14/2025" (today)	AC-24 validation
7	Enter valid past date	Past date accepted without validation errors	Test date: "08/10/2025" (4 days ago)	AC-24 validation
8	Test very old incident date	Enter date from several months ago - should be accepted with potential warning	Test date: "01/15/2025" (7 months ago)	Edge case testing
9	Test invalid date format entry	Enter date in wrong format - system should show format error	Invalid: "2025/08/14", "Aug 14, 2025"	Format validation
10	Attempt to leave field empty	Field validation should prevent form progression without incident date	Empty field - should show required field error	AC-24 mandatory validation
11	Verify date persistence during navigation	Enter valid date, navigate between form sections - date should persist	Date: "08/10/2025" maintained	Data persistence
12	Test edge case: midnight boundary	Enter date at day boundary to test timezone handling	Test various time scenarios	Boundary testing

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Future dates prevented with clear error messages, incident date mandatory for form submission
Secondary_Verifications: Date picker functionality, format validation, data persistence across navigation
Negative_Verification: Future dates rejected, invalid formats blocked, empty field prevents submission

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: CSS01US08_TC_008 (Category selection)
Blocked_Tests: CSS01US08_TC_010 (Description validation)
Parallel_Tests: Other complaint field validation tests
Sequential_Tests: Complete complaint submission workflow

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation ensuring accurate incident timeline for proper complaint processing and SLA compliance
Edge_Cases: Timezone differences, daylight saving time, leap year dates, system clock discrepancies
Risk_Areas: Incorrect incident dates affect complaint resolution timelines and SLA tracking
Security_Considerations: Input validation prevents date manipulation attacks, protects data integrity

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Incident date impact on SLA calculation and priority escalation
Type: Business Logic
Rationale: Older incidents may require different handling per service level agreements
Priority: P2

Scenario_2: Bulk incident date validation for system-wide complaint processing
Type: Performance
Rationale: System must handle multiple concurrent complaint submissions efficiently
Priority: P3

---

Test Case 18: System Performance Under Load

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_018
Title: Verify system performance meets requirements under normal and peak load conditions with proper resource utilization and response times
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Performance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer Services, Performance, Load-Testing, MOD-ServiceSupport, P1-Critical, Phase-Performance, Type-Performance, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Performance, System-Load

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Performance affects all customers during peak usage periods)
Revenue_Impact: High (Poor performance leads to abandonment affecting 80% digital adoption target)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 30 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (System performance data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of system performance scenarios under various load conditions
Integration_Points: All system components, Database, Payment gateway, Email service, File storage
Code_Module_Mapped: Complete-System-Performance
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: User story performance requirements, 80% digital adoption target, customer satisfaction goals
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: All functional tests serve as baseline for performance validation

Test Environment

Environment: Performance Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Load testing tools, Performance monitoring, All integrated systems
Performance_Baseline: Page load < 3 seconds, API response < 500ms, concurrent user support
Data_Requirements: Multiple test user accounts, comprehensive test data sets

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Performance test environment configured, load testing tools ready, monitoring systems active
User_Roles_Permissions: Multiple customer accounts (TC1711-TC1800)
Test_Data: 100 concurrent user accounts, full service catalog, payment gateway access
Prior_Test_Cases: All functional tests passing, system stability confirmed

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Establish baseline performance with single user	Measure portal load time, form response times, submission processing	Single user: TC1711, All request types	Baseline measurement
2	Test portal page load performance	Portal loads within 3 seconds under normal conditions	Page load target: < 3 seconds	AC performance baseline
3	Test API response times for critical operations	Service catalog, request submission, payment APIs respond under 500ms	API response target: < 500ms	API performance baseline
4	Load test with 25 concurrent users	System handles 25 simultaneous users without performance degradation	25 users performing various request types	Moderate load testing
5	Load test with 50 concurrent users	System maintains acceptable performance with 50 simultaneous users	50 users: mix of service requests, complaints, transfers	High load testing
6	Peak load test with 100 concurrent users	System handles peak load gracefully, may show some degradation but remains functional	100 users: complete workflow testing	Peak load testing
7	Test database performance under load	Database queries execute efficiently during high concurrent access	Monitor database response times and resource usage	Database performance
8	Test payment gateway performance under load	Payment processing maintains acceptable response times during concurrent transactions	Multiple simultaneous payment requests	Payment performance
9	Test file upload performance with concurrent users	File upload functionality performs adequately with multiple simultaneous uploads	20 users uploading files concurrently	Upload performance
10	Monitor system resource utilization	CPU, memory, disk usage remain within acceptable limits during load	Resource monitoring: CPU < 80%, Memory < 85%	Resource monitoring
11	Test email system performance under load	Email notifications sent successfully during high system load	Monitor email delivery during peak load	Communication performance
12	Test system recovery after load	System returns to baseline performance after load testing concludes	Performance recovery validation	Recovery testing
13	Stress test beyond normal capacity	Test system behavior when pushed beyond normal operating capacity	150+ concurrent users	Stress testing
14	Validate graceful degradation under extreme load	System degrades gracefully without complete failure, maintains core functionality	Monitor system behavior at capacity limits	Degradation testing

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: System meets performance baselines under normal load, handles peak load gracefully without failure
Secondary_Verifications: Resource utilization within limits, graceful degradation under stress, recovery after load
Negative_Verification: No system crashes under load, no data corruption, no complete service failures

Test Results (Template)

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

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly
Maintenance_Effort: High
Automation_Candidate: Yes

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: All functional tests passing
Blocked_Tests: N/A
Parallel_Tests: Security testing under load
Sequential_Tests: Capacity planning and scaling tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical performance validation ensuring system can handle expected user loads supporting 80% digital adoption target
Edge_Cases: Sudden traffic spikes, uneven load distribution, resource contention, network latency variations
Risk_Areas: Performance failures lead to customer abandonment affecting digital adoption and satisfaction goals
Security_Considerations: Performance monitoring data privacy, load testing data security, system stability during testing

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Performance testing with realistic customer usage patterns and seasonal variations
Type: Realistic Load Testing
Rationale: Actual usage patterns may differ from uniform load testing scenarios
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Performance optimization recommendations based on bottleneck analysis
Type: Performance Optimization
Rationale: Identify and address performance bottlenecks to improve customer experience
Priority: P1

---

Test Case 19: Comprehensive Security Testing

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_019
Title: Verify comprehensive security controls including authentication, authorization, data protection, and vulnerability prevention across all system components
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Security
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Security
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Security, Comprehensive-Security, MOD-Security, P1-Critical, Phase-Security, Type-Security, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Security-Validation, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-CSM, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-SecuritySystems, Security-Compliance

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Security protects all customers and business operations)
Revenue_Impact: High (Security breaches could severely impact customer trust and business operations)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: All touchpoints
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 45 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (All customer and system security data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of security controls and vulnerability prevention measures
Integration_Points: Authentication, Authorization, Encryption, Input Validation, Session Management, Audit Logging
Code_Module_Mapped: Complete-Security-Framework
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, Security-Validation, Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Metrics
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: User story B2B utility SaaS security requirements, data protection compliance
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_002 (Basic authentication), CSS01US08_TC_014 (Payment security)

Test Environment

Environment: Security Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Security testing tools, Vulnerability scanners, Network monitoring
Performance_Baseline: Security controls must not significantly impact performance
Data_Requirements: Security test accounts, vulnerability testing tools, encrypted test data

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Security test environment configured, vulnerability scanning tools ready, security monitoring active
User_Roles_Permissions: Various test accounts with different permission levels
Test_Data: Security test accounts, malicious input samples, encryption test data
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic security tests (TC_002) successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Test SQL injection prevention across all input fields	All input fields reject SQL injection attempts, return safe error messages	Injection payloads: ' OR '1'='1, UNION SELECT, DROP TABLE	Injection prevention
2	Test XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) prevention	All text inputs sanitize script tags and prevent script execution	XSS payloads: <script>alert('xss')</script>, javascript:alert(1)	XSS prevention
3	Test CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) protection	All state-changing operations require valid CSRF tokens	Attempt cross-site form submissions without valid tokens	CSRF protection
4	Validate data encryption in transit	All data transmitted using HTTPS/TLS encryption	Monitor network traffic for unencrypted data	Data encryption
5	Test session management security	Sessions expire appropriately, tokens are secure, no session fixation possible	Session timeout, token security, fixation attempts	Session security
6	Test password policy enforcement	Password requirements enforced: complexity, length, uniqueness	Test weak passwords: "123456", "password", simple patterns	Password security
7	Test account lockout mechanism	Accounts lock after multiple failed login attempts, unlock procedures work	5+ consecutive failed login attempts	Account protection
8	Validate file upload security	File uploads reject malicious files, scan for malware, validate file types	Malicious files: .exe disguised as .pdf, scripts in images	Upload security
9	Test API security controls	API endpoints require proper authentication, reject unauthorized access	Invalid API keys, expired tokens, role-based access	API security
10	Validate audit logging completeness	All security-relevant events logged with sufficient detail	Authentication, authorization, data access events	Security auditing
11	Test payment data security	Payment information properly encrypted, PCI DSS compliance maintained	Payment data handling throughout transaction flow	Financial security
12	Test role-based access controls	Users can only access authorized functionality based on their roles	Customer vs admin access, cross-customer data access	Authorization testing
13	Validate error message security	Error messages don't expose sensitive system information	Database errors, system paths, internal details	Information disclosure prevention
14	Test security headers implementation	Proper security headers prevent common vulnerabilities	X-Frame-Options, CSP, X-XSS-Protection, HSTS	Security headers validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All common security vulnerabilities prevented, data properly encrypted, access controls enforced
Secondary_Verifications: Audit logging comprehensive, error handling secure, compliance requirements met
Negative_Verification: No unauthorized access possible, malicious inputs rejected, sensitive data protected

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: Basic functional tests
Blocked_Tests: N/A
Parallel_Tests: Performance testing
Sequential_Tests: Compliance validation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Comprehensive security validation essential for protecting customer data and maintaining trust in B2B utility SaaS platform
Edge_Cases: Advanced persistent threats, zero-day vulnerabilities, social engineering attempts, insider threats
Risk_Areas: Security breaches could compromise customer data, payment information, and business operations
Security_Considerations: Continuous security monitoring, regular vulnerability assessments, incident response procedures

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Penetration testing by external security experts
Type: Security Assessment
Rationale: Independent security validation provides additional assurance of system security
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Security incident response testing and recovery procedures
Type: Incident Response
Rationale: Ability to respond quickly to security incidents is critical for business continuity
Priority: P1

---

Test Case 20: Data Privacy and Compliance Validation

Test Case ID: CSS01US08_TC_020
Title: Verify comprehensive data privacy protection and regulatory compliance including PII handling, data retention, and customer rights implementation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: August 14, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Service & Support Management
Test Type: Compliance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Compliance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

Tags: Negative, Consumer Services, Privacy, Compliance, MOD-DataProtection, P1-Critical, Phase-Compliance, Type-Compliance, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Security-Validation, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-CSM, Report-Revenue-Impact-Tracking, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-DataProtection, Privacy-Compliance

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Data privacy affects all customers and regulatory compliance)
Revenue_Impact: High (Compliance violations could result in significant fines and customer loss)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: All data collection and processing touchpoints
Compliance_Required: Yes
SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 40 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (All PII and sensitive customer data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of data privacy and compliance requirements
Integration_Points: Data Collection, Storage, Processing, Transmission, Deletion, Audit Systems
Code_Module_Mapped: Complete-Privacy-Framework
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, Security-Validation, Quality-Dashboard, CSM, Revenue-Impact-Tracking
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: User story B2B utility SaaS compliance requirements, data protection regulations
Related_Bugs: N/A for new features
Related_Test_Cases: CSS01US08_TC_019 (Security testing), all data collection test cases

Test Environment

Environment: Compliance Test Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Data protection systems, Audit logging, Encryption services, Data retention policies
Performance_Baseline: Privacy controls must not significantly impact system performance
Data_Requirements: Test customer data, PII samples, compliance validation tools

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Compliance test environment configured, data protection policies implemented, audit systems active
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer access level, data protection officer access
Test_Data: Customer account TC1711 with complete PII data, test data for various scenarios
Prior_Test_Cases: Security testing (TC_019) successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Verify PII data encryption at rest	All personally identifiable information encrypted in database storage	Customer data: names, addresses, emails, phone numbers	Data encryption at rest
2	Validate PII data encryption in transit	All PII transmitted using secure encryption protocols	Monitor network traffic during data transmission	Data encryption in transit
3	Test data minimization principles	System collects only necessary data for stated purposes	Review all data collection points for necessity	Data minimization
4	Verify consent management implementation	Clear consent mechanisms for data collection and processing	Consent checkboxes, privacy policy links, opt-in processes	Consent management
5	Test data access logging	All access to customer PII logged with user, timestamp, purpose	Access customer data, verify audit logs	Access logging
6	Validate data retention policy enforcement	Data deleted according to retention schedules, no unauthorized retention	Test data older than retention period	Data retention
7	Test data subject rights implementation	Customers can access, correct, delete their personal data	Request data access, correction, deletion	Data subject rights
8	Verify data anonymization/pseudonymization	Sensitive data properly anonymized for analytics and reporting	Analytics data should not contain identifiable information	Data anonymization
9	Test data breach notification procedures	Proper procedures for detecting and reporting data breaches	Simulate data breach scenario	Breach notification
10	Validate cross-border data transfer controls	International data transfers comply with applicable regulations	Data transfer monitoring and validation	Data transfer compliance
11	Test third-party data sharing controls	Data sharing with payment processors and partners properly controlled	Payment gateway data sharing validation	Third-party sharing
12	Verify privacy policy accessibility and accuracy	Privacy policy accessible, current, and accurately describes practices	Review privacy policy against actual practices	Privacy policy compliance
13	Test data portability implementation	Customers can export their data in standard formats	Request data export functionality	Data portability
14	Validate compliance reporting capabilities	System can generate compliance reports for regulatory requirements	Generate compliance reports for audit	Compliance reporting

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All PII properly protected, customer rights implemented, regulatory compliance maintained
Secondary_Verifications: Audit logging comprehensive, retention policies enforced, consent management functional
Negative_Verification: No unauthorized data access, retention violations, or compliance gaps

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: Monthly
Maintenance_Effort: High
Automation_Candidate: Planned

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Security testing (TC_019)
Blocked_Tests: N/A
Parallel_Tests: Audit trail validation
Sequential_Tests: Regulatory compliance certification

Additional Information

Notes: Critical compliance validation ensuring customer data protection and regulatory adherence for B2B utility SaaS platform
Edge_Cases: International customers, changing regulations, data subject requests, regulatory audits
Risk_Areas: Compliance violations could result in significant fines, customer trust loss, and business impact
Security_Considerations: Data protection by design, privacy impact assessments, regular compliance reviews

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Regular compliance audits and certification validation
Type: Compliance Assurance
Rationale: Ongoing compliance validation ensures continued adherence to evolving regulations
Priority: P1

Scenario_2: Data protection impact assessment for new features
Type: Privacy by Design
Rationale: New features must be evaluated for privacy impact before implementation
Priority: P1

---