Complaints (CIS01US05)
Total Test Cases: 24
Total Acceptance Criteria: 25
Coverage Percentage: 100%
Test Scenario Summary
Functional Test Scenarios Overview
- Dashboard Analytics & KPI Display (8 scenarios)
- Complaint Listing & Search (6 scenarios)
- Complaint Creation Workflow (12 scenarios)
- Customer Search & Information Management (7 scenarios)
- Evidence & File Management (5 scenarios)
- Receipt Generation & Distribution (4 scenarios)
- Integration Points (6 scenarios)
Non-Functional Test Scenarios Overview
- Performance Testing (5 scenarios)
- Security & Data Protection (4 scenarios)
- Usability & Navigation (3 scenarios)
Edge Cases & Error Scenarios Overview
- Boundary Conditions (8 scenarios)
- Invalid Inputs & Error Handling (6 scenarios)
- System Failures & Recovery (4 scenarios)
Total Test Scenarios: 78 Total Test Cases: 156
Test Suite Definitions
Smoke Test Suite (P1 Priority )
Regression Test Suite (P1-P2 Priority)
- Complete complaint workflow
- All business rule validations
- Integration points testing
- File upload scenarios
- Search and filter operations
Full Test Suite (All Priorities)
- Complete feature coverage
- Edge cases and error scenarios
- Performance benchmarks
- Cross-browser compatibility
- Security validations
Test Case Details
FUNCTIONAL TEST CASES
Test Case 1:Verify CSO Manager can access complaint dashboard with real-time KPI metrics
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_001
Title: Verify CSO Manager can access complaint dashboard with real-time KPI metrics
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/UI
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 3 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 95%
Integration_Points: Dashboard API, Database, Authentication
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Product
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, KPI-Performance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Authentication Service, Database, Complaint API
Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds page load
Data_Requirements: 125+ complaint records across different statuses
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account with valid credentials
User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager role with dashboard access
Test_Data:
Username: cso.manager@aquaflow.com
Password: AquaFlow2025!
Expected KPI Data: 32 Pending, 18 Resolved Today, 7 Rejected, 5 SLA Breached
Prior_Test_Cases: N/A
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to login page | Login page displays with username/password fields | URL: https://smart360.aquaflow.com/login | Initial navigation |
2 | Enter CSO Manager credentials | Credentials accepted, login button enabled | Username: cso.manager@aquaflow.com, Password: AquaFlow2025! | Valid credential entry |
3 | Click Login button | Successful login, redirect to utility admin dashboard | N/A | Authentication process |
4 | Verify utility admin dashboard loads | Dashboard displays with main navigation menu | Page title: "Utility Admin Dashboard" | Dashboard verification(optional not set yet this feature) |
5 | Click on bend to menu | Modules names display | N/A | Menu access |
6 | Navigate to Consumer Management section | Consumer Management options visible | Menu item: "Consumer Management" | Navigation step |
7 | Click on "Complaints" from sidebar | Complaint management page loads | Sidebar option: "Complaints" | Final navigation |
8 | Verify page title and header | Page displays "Complaint Management" header | Header text: "Complaint Management" | Page identification |
9 | Verify KPI cards display | Four KPI cards visible with correct values | Pending: 32, Resolved Today: 18, Rejected: 7, SLA Breached: 5 | KPI validation |
10 | Check trend indicators | Trend arrows and percentage changes visible | +12 from last week, +5 from yesterday, etc. | Trend verification |
11 | Verify complaint overview chart | Line chart displays monthly complaint trends | Chart shows Jan-May data with trend lines | Chart validation |
12 | Check top issue categories | Categories display with correct percentages | Billing Issues: 38%, Water Quality: 24%, Service Delay: 18% | Category breakdown |
13 | Verify average resolution time | Resolution time displays with trend indicator | 3.2 days with ↓ 0.5 days improvement | Performance metric |
14 | Check SLA compliance | SLA percentage displays with improvement indicator | 92% with ↑ 3% improvement | SLA tracking |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: All KPI metrics display accurate real-time data
Secondary_Verifications: Chart renders properly, navigation flow works seamlessly
Negative_Verification: No error messages, no broken UI elements
Test Case 2:Verify Customer Executive can create complaint through 4-step wizard with customer search
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_002
Title: Verify Customer Executive can create complaint through 4-step wizard with customer search
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/UI
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 90%
Integration_Points: Customer Search API, Complaint Service, File Upload
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Product
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Workflow-Coverage, User-Experience
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Authentication Service, Customer Database, File Storage
Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds per step transition
Data_Requirements: Existing customer records, category master data
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account with complaint creation permissions
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer Executive role
Test_Data:
Username: customer.exec@aquaflow.com
Password: AquaFlow2025!
Customer Search: "John"
Expected Customer: John Smith (ACC-10058624)
Prior_Test_Cases: Login authentication test TC_01
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to login page | Login page displays | URL: https://smart360.aquaflow.com/login | Initial access |
2 | Login as Customer Executive | Successful login to utility admin dashboard | customer.exec@aquaflow.com / AquaFlow2025! | Authentication |
3 | Navigate to Consumer Management > Complaints | Complaint management page loads | N/A | Navigation flow |
4 | Click "Create Complaint" button | Complaint creation wizard opens | Blue button: "Create Complaint" | Wizard initiation |
5 | Verify 4-step progress indicator | Progress steps display: Customer Info, Complaint Details, Evidence, Review | Steps 1-4 visible with descriptions | Progress validation |
6 | Verify Step 1 - Customer Information | Customer search section displays | Step 1 highlighted, search field visible | Step verification |
7 | Enter customer search term | Search field accepts input, shows validation | Search term: "John" (minimum 3 characters) | Search input |
8 | Trigger customer search | Search results display matching customers | Results show: John Smith, John Davis, etc. | Search execution |
9 | Select customer from results | Customer details auto-populate below | John Smith - ACC-10058624 | Customer selection |
10 | Verify auto-populated fields | Name, account number, contact info, service address display | John Smith, 555-0123, 123 Water St, Commercial | Data verification |
11 | Click "Next" button | Navigate to Step 2 - Complaint Details | Next button enabled after customer selection | Step transition |
12 | Verify Step 2 loads | Complaint Details form displays with category dropdown | Step 2 highlighted, form fields visible | Step verification |
13 | Select complaint category | Category selected, subcategory dropdown populates | Category: "Service Quality" | Category selection |
14 | Select subcategory | Subcategory selected, priority auto-assigned | Subcategory: "Water Quality", Priority: Medium | Subcategory selection |
15 | Set incident date | Date picker allows past date selection | Incident Date: 2025-06-01 | Date input |
16 | Enter complaint description | Text area accepts detailed description | "Customer reports unusual taste and odor in water supply affecting household consumption" | Description entry |
17 | Enter expected resolution | Text area accepts resolution expectation | "Customer expects water quality testing and resolution within 48 hours" | Resolution expectation |
18 | Click "Next" to Step 3 | Navigate to Evidence & Attachments | All required fields completed | Step transition |
19 | Verify Step 3 loads | File upload section and additional notes area display | Step 3 highlighted, drag-drop area visible | Step verification |
20 | Upload evidence file | File uploads successfully, displays in list | Upload: water_sample_photo.jpg (2MB) | File upload |
21 | Add additional notes | Notes field accepts input | "Customer available for follow-up between 9 AM - 5 PM" | Notes entry |
22 | Click "Next" to Step 4 | Navigate to Review & Submit | File uploaded, notes saved | Step transition |
23 | Verify review section | All entered information displays correctly | Complete complaint summary visible | Review verification |
24 | Enable acknowledgment checkbox | Checkbox selected for customer notification | "Send acknowledgment to customer" checked | Notification setting |
25 | Click "Submit Complaint" | Complaint submitted successfully | Green submit button | Final submission |
26 | Verify success confirmation | Success page displays with complaint reference | "Complaint Submitted Successfully!" message | Submission confirmation |
27 | Verify complaint reference number | Unique reference number generated | Format: CMP-XXXXXXXX | Reference validation |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Complaint successfully created with unique reference number
Secondary_Verifications: Customer search works, all form validations pass, file upload succeeds
Negative_Verification: Cannot proceed without required fields, no duplicate submissions
Test Case 3:Verify receipt generation with complete complaint details and customer information
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_003
Title: Verify receipt generation with complete complaint details and customer information
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/UI
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 2 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: High
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Document Generation, Print Service, Email Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: CSM
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Document-Coverage, Customer-Experience
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Document Service, Print Service
Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds generation time
Data_Requirements: Completed complaint submission
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Previous complaint submission completed
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer Executive role
Test_Data:
Complaint Reference: CMP-68280312
Customer: John Smith
Category: Staff Behavior → Inadequate Communication
Prior_Test_Cases: CIS01US05_TC_002
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | From complaint success page, verify receipt display | Receipt automatically generates and displays | Auto-generation after submission | Automatic generation |
2 | Verify receipt header information | Date, time, and title display correctly | Date: June 2nd, 2025, Time: 8:14 PM, Title: "COMPLAINT REGISTRATION RECEIPT" | Header validation |
3 | Check complaint reference number | Unique reference number in correct format | CMP-68280312 | Reference verification |
4 | Verify customer information section | Complete customer details display | John Smith, ACC-10058624, 555-0123, johnsmith@email.com | Customer data validation |
5 | Check service address | Service address displays correctly | 123 Water Street, Riverside, CA 92503 | Address verification |
6 | Verify customer type | Customer type displays accurately | Commercial | Type validation |
7 | Check complaint details section | Category and subcategory display | Staff Behavior → Inadequate Communication | Category verification |
8 | Verify priority level | Priority level shows correctly | Medium | Priority validation |
9 | Check incident date | Incident date displays as entered | 2025-06-02 | Date verification |
10 | Verify description | Full description text displays | Complete complaint description visible | Description validation |
11 | Check expected resolution | Expected resolution text displays | Customer expectation visible | Resolution verification |
12 | Verify next steps section | Standard next steps information displays | Reference number usage, timeline, contact methods | Next steps validation |
13 | Check contact information | Customer service details display | Current contact info, emergency services, business hours | Contact verification |
14 | Click "Print Receipt" button | Print dialog opens for receipt | Browser print dialog displays | Print functionality |
15 | Verify print preview | Receipt formats correctly for printing | Proper layout, all information visible | Print preview |
16 | Test "Return to Dashboard" button | Navigate back to complaint dashboard | Dashboard loads successfully | Navigation verification |
17 | Click "Add New Complaint" button | New complaint creation wizard opens | Fresh wizard interface loads | New complaint flow |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Receipt generates with all required information accurately displayed
Secondary_Verifications: Print functionality works, navigation buttons function properly
Negative_Verification: No missing information, no formatting issues
Test Case 4:Verify complaint list view displays all complaints with accurate status and filtering
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_004
Title: Verify complaint list view displays all complaints with accurate status and filtering
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/UI
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 85%
Integration_Points: Database, Search Service, Filter Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Tracking
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Database, Authentication Service
Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds list load
Data_Requirements: Multiple complaints with different statuses
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager or Customer Executive account
User_Roles_Permissions: Complaint view permissions
Test_Data:
Multiple test complaints in different statuses
Categories: Billing, Service Quality, Technical Issue, Staff Behavior
Prior_Test_Cases: Login authentication
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to complaint management page | Complaint dashboard loads | Standard navigation flow | Initial access |
2 | Verify "Current Complaints" tab is active | Current Complaints tab highlighted, list displays | Default active tab | Tab verification |
3 | Check complaint list columns | All required columns display: ID, Name, Category, Customer, Status, Priority, Created On, Due Date, SLA Status, Action | Column headers visible | Column validation |
4 | Verify complaint data display | Sample complaints show accurate information | CMP-1001: John Smith, Billing-Incorrect Charges, High Priority, In Progress | Data verification |
5 | Check status indicators | Status badges display with correct colors | In Progress (blue), New (gray), Awaiting Customer (orange) | Status validation |
6 | Verify priority indicators | Priority levels show with visual indicators | High (red), Medium (yellow), Low (green) | Priority validation |
7 | Check SLA status | SLA status displays correctly | Within SLA (green dot), At Risk (orange dot) | SLA verification |
8 | Click "Show Filters" button | Filter panel opens with filter options | Filters: Status, Priority, Category, Subcategory, SLA Status | Filter access |
9 | Apply status filter | List filters to show only selected status | Filter: "In Progress" - shows only in-progress complaints | Status filtering |
10 | Apply priority filter | List filters by priority level | Filter: "High" - shows only high priority complaints | Priority filtering |
11 | Apply category filter | List filters by complaint category | Filter: "Billing" - shows only billing complaints | Category filtering |
12 | Clear all filters | Full complaint list displays again | "Clear Filters" or individual filter removal | Filter clearing |
13 | Test search functionality | Search filters results by entered criteria | Search: "John Smith" - shows John's complaints | Search testing |
14 | Click on complaint ID | Navigate to complaint detail view | CMP-1001 opens detail page | Detail navigation |
15 | Return to list view | Complaint list displays with previous state | Back navigation maintains filters/search | State preservation |
16 | Click "Complaint History" tab | Switch to resolved/rejected complaints | History tab shows completed complaints | History view |
17 | Verify history list | Historical complaints display with resolution details | Resolved and rejected complaints visible | History verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Complaint list displays all active complaints with accurate information
Secondary_Verifications: Filtering works correctly, search functionality operates properly
Negative_Verification: No missing complaints, no incorrect status displays
Test Case 5:Verify customer search functionality with minimum character requirement and auto-population
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_005
Title: Verify customer search functionality with minimum character requirement and auto-population
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 3 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 90%
Integration_Points: Customer Database, Search API
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Integration-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Customer Database, Search Service API
Performance_Baseline: < 500ms search response
Data_Requirements: Customer database with test accounts
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer search permissions
Test_Data:
Search terms: "Joh", "John", "555", "Water"
Expected customers: John Smith (ACC-10058624), John Davis (ACC-10045872)
Prior_Test_Cases: Login and navigation to complaint creation
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to complaint creation Step 1 | Customer Information step displays | Standard navigation to create complaint | Step access |
2 | Verify search field presence | "Search Customer" field visible with placeholder | Placeholder: "Search by account number, name, phone or address..." | Field verification |
3 | Enter 1 character in search | No search triggered, validation message shows | Input: "J" - shows "Type at least 3 characters" | Minimum char validation |
4 | Enter 2 characters in search | No search triggered, validation persists | Input: "Jo" - validation message remains | Minimum char validation |
5 | Enter 3 characters in search | Search triggers, loading indicator appears | Input: "Joh" - search initiated | Search trigger |
6 | Verify search results display | Search results appear with matching customers | Results: John Smith, John Davis, John Wilson | Results display |
7 | Check result format | Each result shows name, account number, contact info | "John Smith - ACC-10058624 - 555-0123" | Result formatting |
8 | Click on search result | Customer details auto-populate below | Select: John Smith | Selection action |
9 | Verify auto-populated fields | All customer fields fill automatically | Name: John Smith, Account: ACC-10058624, Phone: 555-0123, Email: johnsmith@email.com | Auto-population |
10 | Check service address population | Service address displays correctly | 123 Water Street, Riverside, CA 92503 | Address verification |
11 | Verify customer type auto-fill | Customer type populates from account data | Customer Type: Commercial | Type verification |
12 | Test search by account number | Search works with account number input | Search: "10058624" - finds John Smith | Account search |
13 | Test search by phone number | Search works with phone number input | Search: "555-0123" - finds John Smith | Phone search |
14 | Test search by address | Search works with address input | Search: "Water Street" - finds relevant customers | Address search |
15 | Test no results scenario | Appropriate message for no matches | Search: "ZZZZZ" - shows "No customers found" | No results handling |
16 | Clear search and test manual entry | Manual entry section becomes available | Clear search, click "Enter Customer Details Manually" | Manual entry access |
17 | Verify manual entry fields | All required fields available for manual input | Customer Name, Type, Phone, Email, Service Address fields | Manual entry verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Search functionality works with 3+ character minimum and returns accurate results
Secondary_Verifications: Auto-population works correctly, all search methods function
Negative_Verification: No search with <3 characters, proper handling of no results
Test Case 6:Verify file upload functionality with format restrictions and size validation
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_006
Title: Verify file upload functionality with format restrictions and size validation
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/UI
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 95%
Integration_Points: File Storage Service, Validation Service
Code_Module_Mapped: Cx-Backoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, File-Management
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: File Storage Service, Validation Service
Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds upload time for 10MB file
Data_Requirements: Test files in various formats and sizes
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account, test files prepared
User_Roles_Permissions: File upload permissions
Test_Data:
Valid files: water_sample.pdf (2MB), leak_photo.jpg (1.5MB), test_results.png (800KB)
Invalid files: document.docx, large_file.pdf (15MB), virus_test.exe
Prior_Test_Cases: Navigation to Evidence & Attachments step
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to Evidence & Attachments step | Step 3 displays with file upload area | Complaint creation workflow Step 3 | Step access |
2 | Verify drag-drop area display | Upload area shows with instruction text | "Drop & drop files here or click to browse" | Upload area verification |
3 | Verify file format instruction | Supported formats displayed | "Max file size: 10MB. Supported formats: PDF, JPG, PNG" | Format information |
4 | Test drag-and-drop valid PDF | File uploads successfully, appears in list | water_sample.pdf (2MB) | Valid PDF upload |
5 | Verify uploaded file display | File shows with name, size, and remove option | "water_sample.pdf - 2MB [Remove]" | File display verification |
6 | Test click to browse upload | File browser opens for selection | Click "Choose Files" button | Browse functionality |
7 | Upload valid JPG file | Second file uploads successfully | leak_photo.jpg (1.5MB) | Valid JPG upload |
8 | Upload valid PNG file | Third file uploads successfully | test_results.png (800KB) | Valid PNG upload |
9 | Verify multiple files display | All uploaded files listed with details | Three files visible with sizes | Multiple file verification |
10 | Test invalid format upload | Error message displays, file rejected | document.docx - "Invalid file format" | Invalid format handling |
11 | Test oversized file upload | Error message for size limit exceeded | large_file.pdf (15MB) - "File size exceeds 10MB limit" | Size limit validation |
12 | Test executable file upload | Security error, file blocked | virus_test.exe - "File type not allowed for security" | Security validation |
13 | Remove uploaded file | File removes from list successfully | Click remove on water_sample.pdf | File removal |
14 | Verify file list updates | Removed file no longer appears | Only 2 files remain in list | List update verification |
15 | Add additional notes | Notes field accepts text input | "Photos taken during site visit on 2025-06-01" | Notes functionality |
16 | Test maximum note length | Character limit enforced at 500 chars | Enter 501 characters - truncates or shows error | Character limit validation |
17 | Proceed to next step | Step navigation works with uploaded files | Click "Next" - proceeds to Review & Submit | Step progression |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: File upload works with format and size restrictions properly enforced
Secondary_Verifications: Multiple files can be uploaded, invalid files are rejected with clear messages
Negative_Verification: Security restrictions prevent executable uploads, size limits enforced
Test Case 7:Verify business rule validation for complaint categorization and priority assignment
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_007
Title: Verify business rule validation for complaint categorization and priority assignment
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Business Logic
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Category Service, Business Rules Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Business-Rules-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Category Master Data, Business Rules Service
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second for category/priority assignment
Data_Requirements: Complete category and subcategory master data
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account, category master data configured
User_Roles_Permissions: Complaint creation permissions
Test_Data:
Category combinations with different priority levels
Billing → Incorrect Charges (High)
Service Quality → Water Quality (Medium)
Technical Issue → Leakage (High)
Prior_Test_Cases: Navigation to Complaint Details step
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to Complaint Details step | Step 2 displays with category selection | Complaint creation Step 2 | Step access |
2 | Verify category dropdown population | All main categories available | Categories: Billing, Service Quality, Technical Issue, Staff Behavior | Category availability |
3 | Select "Billing" category | Subcategory dropdown populates with billing options | Billing subcategories: Incorrect Charges, Payment Issues, Account Problems | Subcategory population |
4 | Select "Incorrect Charges" subcategory | Priority auto-assigns to High | Priority: High (red indicator) | High priority assignment |
5 | Verify priority field is non-editable | Priority field disabled, shows auto-assigned value | Priority field grayed out, value locked | Priority lock verification |
6 | Change to "Service Quality" category | Subcategory dropdown updates | Service Quality subcategories: Water Quality, Pressure Issues, Service Interruption | Category change handling |
7 | Select "Water Quality" subcategory | Priority auto-assigns to Medium | Priority: Medium (yellow indicator) | Medium priority assignment |
8 | Change to "Technical Issue" category | Subcategory dropdown updates again | Technical subcategories: Leakage, Equipment Failure, Infrastructure | Multiple category changes |
9 | Select "Leakage" subcategory | Priority auto-assigns to High | Priority: High (red indicator) | High priority for critical issues |
10 | Change to "Staff Behavior" category | Subcategory dropdown updates | Staff subcategories: Inadequate Communication, Unprofessional Conduct | Staff category handling |
11 | Select "Inadequate Communication" | Priority auto-assigns to Low | Priority: Low (green indicator) | Low priority assignment |
12 | Verify incident date validation | Past dates accepted, future dates rejected | Valid: 2025-06-01, Invalid: 2025-06-10 | Date validation |
13 | Test incident date too far past | Validation error for dates >90 days old | Date: 2025-03-01 - "Incident date cannot be more than 90 days ago" | Historical date limit |
14 | Enter description with minimum chars | Validation passes with 10+ characters | "Water leak observed under kitchen sink causing damage" | Minimum length validation |
15 | Test description under minimum | Validation error for <10 characters | "Leak" - "Description must be at least 10 characters" | Description validation |
16 | Enter maximum description length | 500 character limit enforced | 500 character description accepted | Maximum length validation |
17 | Verify expected resolution validation | Different from description required | Cannot copy exact description text | Resolution uniqueness |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Priority auto-assignment works correctly based on category/subcategory combinations
Secondary_Verifications: All business rule validations enforce properly
Negative_Verification: Cannot manually override priority, validation prevents invalid inputs
Test Case 8:Verify complaint workflow status transitions and lifecycle management
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_008
Title: Verify complaint workflow status transitions and lifecycle management
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Workflow
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 90%
Integration_Points: Status Management Service, Workflow Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Product
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Workflow-Coverage, Status-Tracking
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Workflow Service, Status Management
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second status updates
Data_Requirements: Existing complaint for status testing
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account with complaint management permissions
User_Roles_Permissions: Complaint status modification permissions
Test_Data:
Test complaint: CMP-1001 (John Smith - Billing Issue)
Initial status: Pending
Prior_Test_Cases: Complaint creation completed
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to complaint detail view | Complaint details page loads | CMP-1001 complaint page | Detail access |
2 | Verify initial status | Complaint shows "Pending" status | Status: Pending (gray badge) | Initial status verification |
3 | Check acknowledgement button | "Acknowledge" button visible and enabled | Blue "Acknowledge" button | Button availability |
4 | Click "Acknowledge" button | Status changes to "In Progress" | Status: In Progress (blue badge) | Status transition |
5 | Verify button text change | Button text changes to "Put on Hold" | Button now shows "Put on Hold" | Button state update |
6 | Check status update timestamp | Last updated timestamp reflects change | "Last updated: [current timestamp] by [user]" | Timestamp verification |
7 | Click "Put on Hold" button | Status changes to "On Hold" | Status: On Hold (orange badge) | Hold status transition |
8 | Verify button text change | Button text changes to "Resume" | Button now shows "Resume" | Resume button display |
9 | Click "Resume" button | Status returns to "In Progress" | Status: In Progress (blue badge) | Resume functionality |
10 | Test "Resolve Request" action | Resolution dialog appears | Quick actions section | Resolution process |
11 | Confirm resolution | Status changes to "Resolved" | Status: Resolved (green badge) | Resolution completion |
12 | Create new test complaint | Fresh complaint for rejection testing | New complaint with Pending status | New complaint setup |
13 | Click "Reject Complaint" action | Rejection dialog with reason field appears | Dialog: "Reason for rejection" text area | Rejection dialog |
14 | Enter rejection reason | Reason accepted, reject button enabled | Reason: "Insufficient information provided by customer" | Rejection reason |
15 | Confirm rejection | Status changes to "Rejected" | Status: Rejected (red badge) | Rejection completion |
16 | Verify status history | Timeline shows all status changes | Timeline tab displays complete history | History tracking |
17 | Check SLA impact | SLA calculations update with status changes | SLA status adjusts based on current state | SLA integration |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Status transitions work correctly following defined lifecycle
Secondary_Verifications: Button states update properly, timestamps record accurately
Negative_Verification: Invalid status transitions are prevented
PERFORMANCE TEST CASES
Test Case 9:Verify dashboard performance with large datasets and concurrent user access
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_009
Title: Verify dashboard performance with large datasets and concurrent user access
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Performance/Load
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 15 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 80%
Integration_Points: Database, Caching Layer, Analytics Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Partial
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Performance-Dashboard, Load-Testing
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Performance Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Load Testing Tools, Database with 10,000+ complaints
Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds dashboard load, < 500ms API calls
Data_Requirements: 10,000+ complaint records across 12 months
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Performance testing environment with large dataset
User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager account
Test_Data:
10,000+ complaints across different categories and statuses
50 concurrent user simulation
Prior_Test_Cases: Functional dashboard tests passed
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Load dashboard with single user | Dashboard loads within 3 seconds | Single user baseline test | Baseline measurement |
2 | Measure KPI card load time | KPI metrics display within 1 second | 4 KPI cards with real data | KPI performance |
3 | Test chart rendering time | Complaint overview chart renders within 2 seconds | 12 months of data visualization | Chart performance |
4 | Simulate 10 concurrent users | Dashboard maintains performance standards | 10 simultaneous logins | Light load testing |
5 | Increase to 25 concurrent users | Performance degradation <20% | 25 users accessing dashboard | Medium load testing |
6 | Test with 50 concurrent users | System remains responsive | 50 users maximum load | Heavy load testing |
7 | Measure database query time | Individual queries complete <200ms | KPI calculation queries | Database performance |
8 | Test filter application performance | Filters apply within 1 second | Apply multiple filter combinations | Filter performance |
9 | Load large complaint list | List loads within 2 seconds with pagination | 1000+ complaints in view | List performance |
10 | Test export functionality performance | Export completes within 30 seconds | Export 1000+ records to Excel | Export performance |
11 | Simulate memory usage | Memory usage remains stable | Monitor for memory leaks | Memory testing |
12 | Test session timeout handling | Graceful session management | Extended usage scenarios | Session management |
13 | Measure page size and load | Total page size <2MB, load time <3s | Network performance analysis | Page weight testing |
14 | Test cache effectiveness | Repeat visits load faster | Cache hit rate >80% | Caching validation |
15 | Monitor CPU usage | Server CPU usage <70% under load | Server resource monitoring | Resource usage |
16 | Test database connection pooling | No connection timeouts under load | Database pool management | Connection testing |
17 | Verify performance under data growth | Performance maintained with increasing data | Progressive data volume testing | Scalability testing |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Dashboard loads within 3 seconds with 50 concurrent users
Secondary_Verifications: All API calls complete within 500ms, no memory leaks
Negative_Verification: No system crashes, no data corruption under load
Test Case 10:Verify file upload performance and concurrent upload handling
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_010
Title: Verify file upload performance and concurrent upload handling
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature:Complaints
Test Type: Performance/File
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 85%
Integration_Points: File Storage Service, Upload API
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Performance-Dashboard, File-Management
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Performance Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: File Storage Service, CDN
Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds for 10MB file, < 30 seconds for multiple files
Data_Requirements: Test files of various sizes
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Performance testing environment
User_Roles_Permissions: File upload permissions
Test_Data:
Small files: 100KB, 500KB, 1MB
Large files: 5MB, 8MB, 10MB
Multiple file sets for concurrent testing
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic file upload functionality verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Upload small file (100KB) | Upload completes within 2 seconds | test_document_100kb.pdf | Baseline small file |
2 | Upload medium file (1MB) | Upload completes within 5 seconds | leak_photo_1mb.jpg | Medium file performance |
3 | Upload large file (5MB) | Upload completes within 15 seconds | site_video_5mb.pdf | Large file performance |
4 | Upload maximum size file (10MB) | Upload completes within 30 seconds | detailed_report_10mb.pdf | Maximum size performance |
5 | Test upload progress indicator | Progress bar updates smoothly | Visual progress tracking | Progress indication |
6 | Upload multiple files sequentially | Each file uploads without degradation | 5 files of 2MB each | Sequential upload testing |
7 | Test concurrent file uploads | Multiple files upload simultaneously | 3 files uploaded at once | Concurrent upload testing |
8 | Simulate network interruption | Upload resumes or fails gracefully | Disconnect during upload | Network resilience |
9 | Test upload cancellation | Upload stops cleanly when cancelled | Cancel upload mid-process | Cancellation handling |
10 | Upload duplicate file names | System handles naming conflicts | Same filename twice | Duplicate handling |
11 | Test storage space handling | Appropriate error when storage full | Simulate storage limit | Storage management |
12 | Upload with slow connection | Upload adapts to connection speed | Throttled connection simulation | Connection adaptation |
13 | Test browser memory usage | Memory usage remains stable | Monitor during large uploads | Memory efficiency |
14 | Upload corrupted file | System detects and rejects corruption | Intentionally corrupted file | Corruption detection |
15 | Test multiple user uploads | System handles concurrent user uploads | 10 users uploading simultaneously | Multi-user performance |
16 | Verify file processing time | Files process for virus scanning quickly | Antivirus integration timing | Processing performance |
17 | Test cleanup of failed uploads | Failed uploads clean up properly | Forced failure scenarios | Cleanup verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: File uploads complete within performance benchmarks
Secondary_Verifications: System handles concurrent uploads, progress indicators work
Negative_Verification: No memory leaks, failed uploads clean up properly
INTEGRATION TEST CASES
Test Case 11:Verify integration with Service Order creation from complaint interface
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_011
Title: Verify integration with Service Order creation from complaint interface
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Integration/API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Service Order API, Complaint Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Integration-Coverage, API-Performance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Integration Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Service Order API, Complaint Database
Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds service order creation
Data_Requirements: Active complaint requiring field service
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account, service order templates configured
User_Roles_Permissions: Service order creation permissions
Test_Data:
Test complaint: CMP-1003 (Robert Johnson - Technical Issue → Leakage)
Service order types: Leak Investigation, Pressure Testing, Pipe Repair
Prior_Test_Cases: Complaint detail view accessible
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to complaint detail view | Complaint details page loads | CMP-1003 (Leakage complaint) | Detail access |
2 | Click on "Service Order" tab | Service order section displays | Tab navigation within complaint | Tab access |
3 | Verify service order creation form | Form displays with required fields | Service order type, scheduled date, remarks | Form verification |
4 | Check service order type dropdown | Only relevant templates for customer type display | Leak Investigation, Pressure Testing available | Template filtering |
5 | Select appropriate service order type | Type selected, form fields adjust | Service Order Type: "Leak Investigation" | Type selection |
6 | Set scheduled date | Date picker allows future date selection | Scheduled Date: 2025-06-07 | Date scheduling |
7 | Enter service order remarks | Text field accepts detailed remarks | "Emergency leak reported at customer location, possible main line issue" | Remarks entry |
8 | Click "Add Service Order" button | Service order creation API call initiated | API integration triggered | Creation initiation |
9 | Verify service order creation success | Success message displays, service order number generated | "Service Order SO-2025-001 created successfully" | Creation confirmation |
10 | Check existing service orders section | New service order appears in list | SO-2025-001 visible with details | List update |
11 | Verify service order details display | All details show correctly in list | SO number, name, status, schedule date, created by | Detail verification |
12 | Check service order status | Initial status shows as "Scheduled" | Status: Scheduled | Status verification |
13 | Click "View Details" link | Navigate to service order detail page | Redirect to service order module | Navigation integration |
14 | Verify complaint linkage | Service order shows originating complaint | Complaint ID: CMP-1003 referenced | Linkage verification |
15 | Return to complaint view | Navigation back maintains context | Return to CMP-1003 detail view | Context preservation |
16 | Test service order completion workflow | Completed service orders update complaint | Mark SO as completed, check complaint status | Completion workflow |
17 | Verify download report functionality | Completed service orders allow report download | "Download Report" button for completed SOs | Report generation |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Service orders are created successfully and linked to complaints
Secondary_Verifications: Integration maintains data consistency, navigation works seamlessly
Negative_Verification: No orphaned service orders, no data corruption during integration
Test Case 12:Verify integration with Communication module for customer messaging
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_012
Title: Verify integration with Communication module for customer messaging
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Integration/API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 95%
Integration_Points: Communication API, Email Service, SMS Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Integration-Coverage, Communication-Tracking
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Integration Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Communication API, Email Service, SMS Gateway
Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds message sending
Data_Requirements: Active complaint with customer contact information
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account, communication module access
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer communication permissions
Test_Data:
Test complaint: CMP-1001 (John Smith with valid email/phone)
Message templates configured
Prior_Test_Cases: Complaint detail view accessible
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to complaint detail view | Complaint details page loads | CMP-1001 (John Smith complaint) | Detail access |
2 | Click "Send Response to Consumer" | Redirect to communication module | Quick actions section | Communication initiation |
3 | Verify communication interface loads | Individual messaging interface displays | Communication module with complaint context | Interface verification |
4 | Check pre-populated complaint context | Complaint details auto-populate | Complaint ID, customer info, complaint summary | Context verification |
5 | Select message type | Email/SMS options available | Choose: Email | Message type selection |
6 | Verify customer contact auto-fill | Customer email auto-populates | To: johnsmith@email.com | Contact auto-fill |
7 | Select message template | Pre-defined templates available | Template: "Complaint Acknowledgment" | Template selection |
8 | Customize message content | Template content can be modified | Add personalized message content | Content customization |
9 | Send message to customer | Message sends successfully | Click "Send Message" | Message transmission |
10 | Verify send confirmation | Success message displays | "Message sent successfully to customer" | Send confirmation |
11 | Return to complaint detail | Navigate back to complaint view | Back to CMP-1001 detail | Navigation back |
12 | Check Communication tab | New message appears in timeline | Communication tab shows sent message | Timeline update |
13 | Verify message visibility settings | Message marked as "Customer Visible" | Communication type: Customer Visible | Visibility verification |
14 | Add internal note | Internal communication option | Click "Add Internal Note" | Internal messaging |
15 | Enter internal note content | Internal note accepts input | "Customer contacted via phone, follow-up required" | Internal note entry |
16 | Save internal note | Note saves with "Internal Only" marking | Communication type: Internal Only | Internal note saving |
17 | Verify communication audit trail | All communications logged with timestamps | Complete audit trail visible | Audit verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Communication integration works seamlessly with proper message delivery
Secondary_Verifications: Audit trail maintains, visibility settings work correctly
Negative_Verification: No message delivery failures, internal notes remain internal
SECURITY & DATA PROTECTION TEST CASES
Test Case 13:Verify role-based access control for complaint management functions
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_013
Title: Verify role-based access control for complaint management functions
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Security/Access Control
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Security
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Authentication Service, Authorization Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Security-Dashboard, Access-Control, Compliance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: Critical
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Security Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Authentication Service, Role Management System
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second authorization checks
Data_Requirements: Multiple user roles with different permissions
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Multiple user accounts with different roles
User_Roles_Permissions: CSO Manager, Customer Executive, Call Center Rep, Read-Only User
Test_Data:
CSO Manager: cso.manager@aquaflow.com
Customer Executive: customer.exec@aquaflow.com
Call Center Rep: callcenter.rep@aquaflow.com
Read-Only User: readonly.user@aquaflow.com
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic authentication tests
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Login as CSO Manager | Full access to all complaint functions | cso.manager@aquaflow.com | Full access verification |
2 | Verify dashboard access | Complete dashboard with all KPIs visible | All metrics and analytics accessible | Manager dashboard access |
3 | Check complaint creation access | "Create Complaint" button visible and functional | Button enabled, wizard accessible | Creation permissions |
4 | Test complaint status modification | Can acknowledge, hold, resolve, reject complaints | All status change buttons available | Status modification rights |
5 | Verify bulk actions access | Bulk Actions dropdown available | Mass operations accessible | Bulk operation permissions |
6 | Check export functionality | Export options available | "Export" button functional | Export permissions |
7 | Logout and login as Customer Executive | Limited access appropriate to role | customer.exec@aquaflow.com | Executive role verification |
8 | Verify complaint creation access | Can create complaints but limited admin functions | Create button available, limited dashboard | Executive permissions |
9 | Check status modification limits | Can acknowledge but not resolve/reject | Limited status change options | Executive limitations |
10 | Test service order creation | Can create service orders from complaints | Service order tab accessible | Service order permissions |
11 | Logout and login as Call Center Rep | Basic complaint creation access only | callcenter.rep@aquaflow.com | Rep role verification |
12 | Verify limited dashboard access | Basic KPIs visible, no advanced analytics | Simplified dashboard view | Rep dashboard access |
13 | Check complaint creation access | Can create complaints with basic info | Create complaint functionality | Rep creation access |
14 | Test advanced features access | No access to bulk actions, exports, admin functions | Advanced features hidden/disabled | Rep limitations |
15 | Logout and login as Read-Only User | View-only access to complaints | readonly.user@aquaflow.com | Read-only verification |
16 | Verify no creation access | "Create Complaint" button not visible | No creation capabilities | Read-only restrictions |
17 | Check view-only permissions | Can view complaints but no modification options | All modification buttons hidden | View-only confirmation |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Each role has appropriate access levels with proper restrictions
Secondary_Verifications: No privilege escalation possible, UI adapts to permissions
Negative_Verification: Cannot access functions beyond role permissions
Test Case 14:Verify data protection and sensitive information handling
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_014
Title: Verify data protection and sensitive information handling
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Security/Data Privacy
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Security
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 90%
Integration_Points: Encryption Service, Data Masking, Audit Logging
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Security-Dashboard, Data-Protection, Compliance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: Critical
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Security Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Encryption Service, Audit System
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second for encryption/decryption
Data_Requirements: Sensitive customer data for testing
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account, sensitive test data
User_Roles_Permissions: Standard user permissions
Test_Data:
Customer with PII: Sarah Johnson (SSN, Credit Card info)
Sensitive complaint details
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic functionality verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Create complaint with sensitive data | Sensitive fields masked in UI | Customer with SSN: XXX-XX-1234 | Data masking verification |
2 | Check network traffic | Sensitive data encrypted in transit | Use browser dev tools to inspect | Encryption verification |
3 | Verify database storage | Data encrypted at rest | Database query shows encrypted values | Storage encryption |
4 | Test audit trail logging | All access to sensitive data logged | Audit logs capture data access | Audit verification |
5 | Check user session security | Session tokens secured and expire | Session management verification | Session security |
6 | Test data export controls | Sensitive data properly handled in exports | Export with PII masking | Export protection |
7 | Verify search result masking | Sensitive data masked in search results | Search returns with masked PII | Search masking |
8 | Test receipt generation | No sensitive data in receipts unless required | Customer receipts exclude sensitive info | Receipt protection |
9 | Check file upload scanning | Uploaded files scanned for sensitive content | Upload file with test PII | Upload scanning |
10 | Verify access logging | All file access logged with user attribution | File access audit trail | File access logging |
11 | Test data retention policies | Old data archived/deleted per policy | Data lifecycle management | Retention verification |
12 | Check cross-user data isolation | Users cannot access others' sensitive data | User A cannot see User B's PII | Data isolation |
13 | Verify error message security | Error messages don't expose sensitive data | Trigger errors, check message content | Error message security |
14 | Test browser security headers | Proper security headers present | X-Frame-Options, CSP headers | Header verification |
15 | Check client-side data handling | No sensitive data stored in browser | Local storage/session storage inspection | Client-side security |
16 | Verify communication encryption | Customer communications encrypted | Email/SMS encryption verification | Communication security |
17 | Test data anonymization | Analytics use anonymized data | Dashboard metrics don't expose PII | Anonymization verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: All sensitive data properly encrypted and masked
Secondary_Verifications: Audit trails capture access, compliance requirements met
Negative_Verification: No sensitive data exposure in logs, exports, or communications
EDGE CASES & ERROR HANDLING TEST CASES
Test Case 15:Verify boundary conditions and limit handling for complaint system
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_015
Title: Verify boundary conditions and limit handling for complaint system
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Edge Cases
Test Level: System
Priority: P3-Medium
Execution Phase: Full
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Could-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 7 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Low
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 80%
Integration_Points: Validation Service, Input Processing
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Partial
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Edge-Case-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Low
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Validation Service
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second validation response
Data_Requirements: Boundary test data sets
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account
User_Roles_Permissions: Complaint creation permissions
Test_Data:
Minimum/maximum length strings
Boundary dates
Special characters
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic complaint creation functional
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Test description minimum length | Validation prevents <10 characters | Input: "Short" (5 chars) - error message | Minimum boundary |
2 | Test description at minimum boundary | Exactly 10 characters accepted | Input: "Ten chars!" (10 chars) - accepted | Minimum boundary success |
3 | Test description maximum length | 500 characters accepted | 500 character description - accepted | Maximum boundary |
4 | Test description over maximum | Validation prevents >500 characters | 501 character input - truncated or error | Maximum boundary violation |
5 | Test incident date 90 days past | Date at limit accepted | Date: 90 days ago - accepted | Historical date limit |
6 | Test incident date >90 days past | Validation rejects old dates | Date: 91 days ago - error message | Historical date violation |
7 | Test incident date today | Current date accepted | Today's date - accepted | Current date boundary |
8 | Test incident date future | Future dates rejected | Tomorrow's date - error message | Future date rejection |
9 | Test customer name with special chars | Special characters handled properly | Name: "O'Sullivan-Jones Jr." | Special character handling |
10 | Test maximum file upload count | System handles 5 files maximum | Upload 5 files - all accepted | File count limit |
11 | Test exceeding file upload limit | 6th file rejected or warning shown | Upload 6th file - error/warning | File count violation |
12 | Test file size at 10MB limit | 10MB file accepted | exactly_10mb_file.pdf | File size boundary |
13 | Test file size over 10MB limit | >10MB file rejected | 10.1mb_file.pdf - error message | File size violation |
14 | Test search with minimum characters | 3 characters triggers search | Search: "Abc" - search initiated | Search minimum boundary |
15 | Test search with special characters | Special chars in search handled | Search: "O'Brien & Co." | Search special handling |
16 | Test extremely long customer name | Long names truncated or handled | 100+ character customer name | Long name handling |
17 | Test Unicode character support | Unicode characters properly handled | Customer name with émojis/accents | Unicode support |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: All boundary conditions properly validated and handled
Secondary_Verifications: Error messages clear and helpful, no system crashes
Negative_Verification: No data corruption at boundaries, graceful error handling
Test Case 16:Verify error handling for invalid inputs and malformed data
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_016
Title: Verify error handling for invalid inputs and malformed data
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature:Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Error Handling
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Low
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 85%
Integration_Points: Validation Service, Error Handling Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Error-Handling-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Validation Service, Error Handling
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second error response
Data_Requirements: Invalid data test sets
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account
User_Roles_Permissions: Complaint creation permissions
Test_Data:
SQL injection strings
XSS payloads
Malformed data
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic validation tests passed
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Enter SQL injection in customer search | Input sanitized, no SQL execution | Search: "'; DROP TABLE customers; --" | SQL injection prevention |
2 | Test XSS payload in description | Script tags escaped/removed | Description: "<script>alert('xss')</script>" | XSS prevention |
3 | Enter malformed email address | Email validation catches format error | Email: "invalid.email.format" | Email format validation |
4 | Test phone number with invalid format | Phone validation requires proper format | Phone: "abc-def-ghij" | Phone format validation |
5 | Submit form with empty required fields | Clear error messages for each field | Leave required fields empty | Required field validation |
6 | Enter negative numbers where inappropriate | Numeric validation prevents negative values | File size: -5 MB | Numeric validation |
7 | Test extremely long input strings | Input truncated or rejected gracefully | 10,000 character description | Long input handling |
8 | Upload file with no extension | File type validation handles properly | Upload: "testfile" (no extension) | File extension validation |
9 | Upload file with fake extension | File content validation detects mismatch | Upload: "virus.pdf" (actually .exe) | File content validation |
10 | Test date format variations | Date parsing handles multiple formats | Dates: "06/05/2025", "2025-06-05" | Date format flexibility |
11 | Enter HTML in text fields | HTML tags escaped/stripped | Input: "<b>Bold text</b>" | HTML sanitization |
12 | Test duplicate form submission | Prevents duplicate complaint creation | Double-click submit button rapidly | Duplicate submission prevention |
13 | Enter non-printable characters | Control characters handled properly | Input with ASCII control chars | Control character handling |
14 | Test invalid category combination | Validation catches mismatched categories | Select invalid category/subcategory pair | Category validation |
15 | Submit with modified form data | Client-side bypass prevention | Modify hidden form fields via dev tools | Form tampering prevention |
16 | Test concurrent form submissions | System handles simultaneous submissions | Submit same form from multiple tabs | Concurrency handling |
17 | Enter international characters | Unicode support without corruption | Customer name: "张三", "José María" | International character support |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: All invalid inputs properly handled with clear error messages
Secondary_Verifications: No security vulnerabilities exposed, system remains stable
Negative_Verification: No data corruption, no system crashes from invalid inputs
API TEST CASES (Critical Level >=7)
Test Case 17:Verify complaint creation API with complete data validation and response handling
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_017
Title: Verify complaint creation API with complete data validation and response handling
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: API/Backend
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Database, Validation Service, File Storage
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: API
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: API-Performance, Backend-Quality, Integration-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: Critical
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: API Testing Environment
Browser/Version: API Testing Tool (Postman/Newman)
Device/OS: Server Environment
Screen_Resolution: N/A
Dependencies: Database, Authentication API, File Storage API
Performance_Baseline: < 500ms response time, 99.9% uptime
Data_Requirements: Valid API authentication tokens
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: API testing environment, valid authentication
User_Roles_Permissions: API access with complaint creation scope
Test_Data:
Valid API token for customer executive
Complete complaint data payload
Test customer data
Prior_Test_Cases: API authentication tests
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | POST /api/complaints with valid data | HTTP 201 Created, complaint object returned | Valid JSON payload with all required fields | Successful creation |
2 | Verify response contains complaint ID | Unique complaint ID in response | complaint_id: "CMP-XXXXXXXX" format | ID generation verification |
3 | Verify response timestamp | Created timestamp in ISO format | created_at: "2025-06-05T14:30:00Z" | Timestamp verification |
4 | Test API with missing required field | HTTP 400 Bad Request with field errors | Remove customer_name from payload | Required field validation |
5 | Test API with invalid data types | HTTP 400 with data type error | Send string for numeric field | Data type validation |
6 | POST with malformed JSON | HTTP 400 with JSON parse error | Invalid JSON syntax | JSON validation |
7 | Test API without authentication | HTTP 401 Unauthorized | No Authorization header | Authentication requirement |
8 | Test API with expired token | HTTP 401 with token expired message | Expired authentication token | Token validation |
9 | Test API with insufficient permissions | HTTP 403 Forbidden | Token without complaint creation scope | Permission validation |
10 | Test concurrent API calls | All requests processed successfully | 10 simultaneous POST requests | Concurrency handling |
11 | Verify database record creation | Complaint stored in database correctly | Query database for created complaint | Database integration |
12 | Test API response time | Response time under 500ms | Measure API response latency | Performance verification |
13 | Test large payload handling | API handles large descriptions/attachments | 500 character description, multiple files | Payload size handling |
14 | Verify audit trail creation | API call logged in audit system | Check audit logs for API activity | Audit integration |
15 | Test API rate limiting | Rate limits enforced properly | Exceed rate limit threshold | Rate limiting verification |
16 | Test API with special characters | Unicode characters handled correctly | Customer name with special chars | Character encoding |
17 | GET /api/complaints/{id} verification | Created complaint retrievable via API | Fetch created complaint by ID | Retrieval verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: API creates complaints successfully with proper validation
Secondary_Verifications: Performance meets benchmarks, security controls work
Negative_Verification: Invalid requests properly rejected, no data corruption
Test Case 18:Verify complaint search and filtering API with performance optimization
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_018
Title: Verify complaint search and filtering API with performance optimization
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: API/Performance
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: High
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 95%
Integration_Points: Search Engine, Database, Caching Layer
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: API
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: API-Performance, Search-Efficiency, Backend-Quality
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Performance Testing Environment
Browser/Version: API Testing Tool
Device/OS: Server Environment
Screen_Resolution: N/A
Dependencies: Search Service, Database, Redis Cache
Performance_Baseline: < 200ms search response, 1000+ RPS
Data_Requirements: 10,000+ complaint records for search testing
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Performance environment with large dataset
User_Roles_Permissions: API access with search permissions
Test_Data:
10,000+ complaints across categories
Various search scenarios
Performance benchmarking data
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic search functionality verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | GET /api/complaints with no filters | Returns paginated list under 200ms | Default pagination: 50 records | Baseline performance |
2 | Test search by customer name | Accurate results returned quickly | search: "John Smith" | Name search performance |
3 | Test search by complaint ID | Single result returned instantly | search: "CMP-1001" | ID search performance |
4 | Test category filtering | Results filtered correctly | filter: category="Billing" | Category filter performance |
5 | Test multiple filter combination | Combined filters work efficiently | status="Pending" AND priority="High" | Multi-filter performance |
6 | Test date range filtering | Date queries optimized | created_date: "2025-01-01" to "2025-06-01" | Date range performance |
7 | Test fuzzy search capability | Partial matches returned | search: "Joh" matches "John Smith" | Fuzzy search accuracy |
8 | Test search with special characters | Special chars handled in search | search: "O'Brien" | Special character search |
9 | Test pagination performance | Large result sets paginated efficiently | page=1, page_size=100 | Pagination performance |
10 | Test sort functionality | Results sorted correctly | sort_by="created_date", order="desc" | Sort performance |
11 | Load test with 100 concurrent searches | API maintains performance under load | 100 simultaneous search requests | Concurrent load testing |
12 | Test search result caching | Repeated searches use cache | Same search query twice | Cache effectiveness |
13 | Test full-text search capability | Description content searchable | search: "water quality issue" | Full-text search |
14 | Test search result accuracy | All matching records returned | Verify search completeness | Result accuracy |
15 | Test search with large result sets | Performance maintained with 1000+ results | Broad search returning many results | Large dataset handling |
16 | Test API response structure | Consistent response format | Verify JSON schema compliance | Response consistency |
17 | Test search analytics tracking | Search queries logged for analytics | Monitor search pattern tracking | Analytics integration |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Search API performs within 200ms with accurate results
Secondary_Verifications: Handles concurrent load, caching works effectively
Negative_Verification: No search result corruption, no performance degradation
SYSTEM FAILURE & RECOVERY TEST CASES
Test Case 19:Verify system behavior during database connectivity issues and recovery
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_019
Title: Verify system behavior during database connectivity issues and recovery
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Reliability/Recovery
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Full
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 15 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: High
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 70%
Integration_Points: Database, Connection Pool, Error Handler
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Partial
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: System-Reliability, Failure-Recovery, Uptime-Tracking
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Reliability Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Database, Connection Monitoring Tools
Performance_Baseline: < 30 seconds recovery time
Data_Requirements: Active complaint creation sessions
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Controlled environment with database access controls
User_Roles_Permissions: Customer Executive account
Test_Data:
Active complaint creation session
Database connectivity controls
Prior_Test_Cases: Normal system operation verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Begin normal complaint creation | System operates normally | Start complaint creation wizard | Baseline operation |
2 | Simulate database connection loss | Graceful error handling displayed | Disconnect database connection | Connection failure simulation |
3 | Verify user-friendly error message | Clear error message without technical details | "Service temporarily unavailable, please try again" | User-friendly messaging |
4 | Test form data preservation | User input preserved during outage | Form data retained in browser | Data preservation |
5 | Check retry mechanism | System attempts automatic reconnection | Automatic retry every 30 seconds | Retry functionality |
6 | Verify system monitoring alerts | Alerts triggered for operations team | Database connection alerts sent | Monitoring integration |
7 | Restore database connection | System detects restoration automatically | Reconnect database | Connection restoration |
8 | Test automatic recovery | System resumes normal operation | Form submission works again | Automatic recovery |
9 | Verify data integrity | No data corruption during outage | Previously entered data intact | Data integrity check |
10 | Test complaint submission after recovery | Normal submission process works | Complete complaint creation | Post-recovery functionality |
11 | Check audit trail completeness | Outage period documented in logs | Audit logs show connection events | Audit trail verification |
12 | Test read-only mode capability | System switches to read-only during issues | View mode available, creation disabled | Degraded service mode |
13 | Verify session persistence | User sessions maintained through outage | No forced logout during outage | Session management |
14 | Test partial database connectivity | System handles partial service degradation | Some services work, others gracefully fail | Partial failure handling |
15 | Check performance after recovery | System performance returns to normal | Response times back to baseline | Performance recovery |
16 | Test concurrent user impact | Multiple users affected equally | All users see consistent behavior | Multi-user impact |
17 | Verify SLA tracking during outage | Downtime properly tracked and reported | SLA metrics account for outage | SLA impact tracking |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: System gracefully handles database outages with automatic recovery
Secondary_Verifications: User data preserved, monitoring alerts work, audit trail complete
Negative_Verification: No data loss, no system crashes, no permanent damage
Test Case 20: Verify SLA breach risk calculation and proactive alerting system
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_020
Title: Verify SLA breach risk calculation and proactive alerting system
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Business Logic
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: SLA Engine, Alert System, Notification Service
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, SLA-Compliance, Alert-Management
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: Critical
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: SLA Engine, Alert System, Email Service
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second SLA calculation
Data_Requirements: Complaints approaching SLA breach
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account, SLA configuration active
User_Roles_Permissions: SLA monitoring permissions
Test_Data:
Complaint due in 25 hours: CMP-2001 (Water Quality - Medium Priority)
Complaint due in 23 hours: CMP-2002 (Billing - High Priority)
SLA Rules: Medium Priority = 48 hours, High Priority = 24 hours
Prior_Test_Cases: Complaint creation and dashboard access
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to login page | Login page displays | URL: https://smart360.aquaflow.com/login | Initial access |
2 | Login as CSO Manager | Successful login to utility admin dashboard | cso.manager@aquaflow.com / AquaFlow2025! | Authentication |
3 | Navigate to Consumer Management > Complaints | Complaint management page loads | Standard navigation flow | Navigation |
4 | Verify SLA breach alert for 23-hour complaint | Alert shows for complaint approaching SLA breach | CMP-2002 shows "SLA Alert" indicator | 24-hour alert verification |
5 | Check dashboard SLA metrics | SLA breach count includes at-risk complaints | "SLA Breached: 5" includes at-risk items | Dashboard SLA display |
6 | Click on at-risk complaint | Complaint detail shows SLA warning | CMP-2002 detail view with SLA warning | Detail SLA indication |
7 | Verify SLA due date calculation | Due date calculated correctly from creation + resolution time | Due Date: 2025-06-06 14:30 (24 hrs from creation) | Due date accuracy |
8 | Check time remaining display | Time remaining shows accurate countdown | "Time Remaining: 23 hours 15 minutes" | Countdown accuracy |
9 | Verify SLA status indicator | Status shows "At Risk" for approaching breach | SLA Status: "At Risk" (orange indicator) | Status indication |
10 | Check automated alert generation | System generates alert notification | Alert: "Complaint CMP-2002 approaching SLA breach" | Alert generation |
11 | Verify alert recipient configuration | Alerts sent to configured stakeholders | CSO Manager and assigned staff receive alerts | Alert distribution |
12 | Test alert timing accuracy | Alerts triggered exactly 24 hours before due date | Alert timestamp: 24 hours before SLA due | Alert timing |
13 | Check escalation workflow | SLA alerts trigger escalation process | Alert escalates to senior management | Escalation verification |
14 | Verify SLA calculation for different priorities | Different complaint types have different SLA windows | High: 24hrs, Medium: 48hrs, Low: 72hrs | Priority-based SLA |
15 | Test SLA recalculation on status change | SLA adjusts when complaint put on hold | On-hold complaints pause SLA countdown | SLA adjustment |
16 | Check breach prevention actions | System provides breach prevention options | "Expedite Resolution" action available | Prevention actions |
17 | Verify audit trail for SLA events | All SLA calculations and alerts logged | Audit log shows SLA events with timestamps | SLA audit trail |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: SLA breach alerts generated 24 hours before due dates with accurate calculations
Secondary_Verifications: Alert distribution works, escalation triggers properly
Negative_Verification: No false alerts, accurate SLA calculations for all priority levels
Test Case 21: Verify complaint deletion prevention and data archival after retention period
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_021
Title: Verify complaint deletion prevention and data archival after retention period
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature:Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Data Management
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Full
Automation Status: Manual
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 95%
Integration_Points: Archive System, Database, Compliance Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Data-Management, Compliance
Trend_Tracking: No
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Archive System, Database, Retention Policy Engine
Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds for retention checks
Data_Requirements: Complaints of various ages for retention testing
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account, data retention policies configured
User_Roles_Permissions: Data management permissions
Test_Data:
Recent complaint: CMP-3001 (created 1 month ago)
Old complaint: CMP-2020-001 (created 5 years ago)
Archived complaint: CMP-2019-001 (beyond retention period)
Retention Policy: 7 years for complaints
Prior_Test_Cases: Complaint listing and detail view access
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to login page | Login page displays | URL: https://smart360.aquaflow.com/login | Initial access |
2 | Login as CSO Manager | Successful login to utility admin dashboard | cso.manager@aquaflow.com / AquaFlow2025! | Authentication |
3 | Navigate to Consumer Management > Complaints | Complaint management page loads | Standard navigation flow | Navigation |
4 | Attempt to access complaint detail | Recent complaint accessible normally | CMP-3001 detail view loads | Normal access verification |
5 | Look for delete option | No delete button/option available | UI inspection shows no delete functionality | Deletion prevention |
6 | Check complaint actions menu | Delete option not present in any menu | Actions: View, Edit, Status Change (no delete) | Action menu verification |
7 | Test bulk actions for deletion | Bulk delete option not available | Bulk Actions dropdown excludes delete | Bulk deletion prevention |
8 | Verify old complaint accessibility | Old complaints remain accessible | CMP-2020-001 (5 years old) still viewable | Long-term accessibility |
9 | Check retention policy compliance | Complaints within retention period visible | All complaints <7 years old are accessible | Retention compliance |
10 | Test archived complaint access | Archived complaints show special status | CMP-2019-001 shows "Archived" status | Archive status indication |
11 | Verify archived data limitations | Archived complaints read-only | No edit options for archived complaints | Archive restrictions |
12 | Check audit trail for archived items | Archive actions logged in audit trail | Audit shows "Complaint Archived" events | Archive audit trail |
13 | Test data export with archived items | Archived data included in exports with marking | Export includes archived complaints with status | Archive export handling |
14 | Verify retention policy configuration | System shows configured retention periods | Settings show 7-year retention policy | Policy verification |
15 | Test compliance reporting | Reports show retention compliance status | Compliance dashboard shows retention metrics | Compliance reporting |
16 | Check data anonymization | Archived data properly anonymized | PII removed from archived complaints | Data anonymization |
17 | Verify legal hold capability | System can prevent archival for legal holds | Legal hold flag prevents automatic archival | Legal hold verification |
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Complaint deletion is completely prevented and archival works according to retention policies
Secondary_Verifications: Archived data remains accessible but read-only, compliance tracking works
Negative_Verification: No way to permanently delete complaints, no data loss during archival
Test Case 22: Verify automatic acknowledgment email delivery within 30-minute SLA
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_022
Title: Verify automatic acknowledgment email delivery within 30-minute SLA
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: All
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 35 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Email Service, SMTP Gateway, Template Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Email
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Integration Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest + Email Testing Tools
Device/OS: Windows 11
Dependencies: Email Service, SMTP Server, Template Service
Performance_Baseline: < 30 minutes email delivery
Data_Requirements: Valid customer email addresses
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Customer Executive account, email service configured
User_Roles_Permissions: Complaint creation permissions
Test_Data:
- Customer Email: testcustomer@example.com
Email Template: Complaint Acknowledgment
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic complaint creation workflow
Test Procedure
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Acknowledgment email delivered within 30 minutes of complaint submission
Secondary_Verifications: Email content accurate, professional formatting, delivery logging works
Negative_Verification: Failed deliveries properly handled with retry mechanism
Test Case 23: Verify SLA breach risk calculation and 24-hour advance alerting system
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_023
Title: Verify SLA breach risk calculation and 24-hour advance alerting system
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Business Logic
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: High
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: SLA Engine, Alert Service, Notification System
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web + Email + SMS
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Testing Environment with time manipulation capability
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Dependencies: SLA Engine, Alert Service, Time Service
Performance_Baseline: < 1 second alert generation
Data_Requirements: Complaints with different SLA timelines
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: CSO Manager account, SLA alerting configured
User_Roles_Permissions: SLA monitoring and alert management permissions
Test_Data:
- High Priority Complaint (24-hour SLA)
Medium Priority Complaint (48-hour SLA)
Alert recipients configured
Prior_Test_Cases: Complaint creation and SLA configuration
Test Procedure
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: SLA breach risk alerts generated exactly 24 hours before due dates
Secondary_Verifications: Escalation chain works, multi-channel delivery successful
Negative_Verification: No false alerts, alerts stop for resolved complaints
Test Case 24: Verify comprehensive audit trail maintenance for all complaint actions and modifications
Test Case ID: CIS01US05_TC_024
Title: Verify comprehensive audit trail maintenance for all complaint actions and modifications
Test Case Metadata
Created By: QA Team
Created Date: 2025-06-05
Version: 1.0
Classification
Module/Feature: Complaints
Test Type: Functional/Compliance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated
Business Context
Customer_Segment: Enterprise
Revenue_Impact: Medium
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Support
Compliance_Required: Yes
Quality Metrics
Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High
Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
Feature_Coverage: 100%
Integration_Points: Audit Service, Database, Compliance Engine
Code_Module_Mapped: CxBackoffice
Requirement_Coverage: Complete
Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
Environment: Testing Environment
Browser/Version: Chrome Latest
Device/OS: Windows 11
Dependencies: Audit Service, Database, User Management
Performance_Baseline: < 100ms audit log creation
Data_Requirements: Multiple user roles for audit testing
Prerequisites
Setup_Requirements: Multiple user accounts with different roles
User_Roles_Permissions: Various roles (CSO Manager, Customer Executive, Call Center Rep)
Test_Data:
- Test complaint for audit trail testing
Multiple user accounts
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic complaint functionality verified
Test Procedure
Verification Points
Primary_Verification: Complete audit trail maintained for all complaint actions with accurate timestamps and user attribution
Secondary_Verifications: Audit data searchable and exportable, data integrity maintained
Negative_Verification: No audit gaps, audit records immutable, failed actions properly logged
EXECUTION MATRIX & SUITE ORGANIZATION
Test Execution Matrix
Browser/Platform Coverage
Test Case Category | Chrome Latest | Priority | Execution Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
Dashboard Analytics | ✓ | P1-Critical | Daily |
Complaint Creation | ✓ | P1-Critical | Daily |
Customer Search | ✓ | P2-High | Weekly |
File Upload | ✓ | P2-High | Weekly |
Receipt Generation | ✓ | P1-Critical | Daily |
Security Testing | ✓ | P1-Critical | Weekly |
Performance Testing | ✓ | P2-High | Weekly |
API Testing | ✓ | P1-Critical | Daily |
Integration Testing | ✓ | P1-Critical | Weekly |
Error Handling | ✓ | P2-High | Weekly |
Test Suite Compositions
Smoke Test Suite (24 Test Cases)
Execution Time: 45 minutes
Execution Frequency: Every build deployment
Criteria: P1 priority, basic functionality validation
Included Test Cases:
- CIS01US05_TC_001: Dashboard KPI Display
- CIS01US05_TC_002: Complaint Creation Workflow
- CIS01US05_TC_003: Receipt Generation
- CIS01US05_TC_008: Status Transitions
- CIS01US05_TC_013: Role-Based Access Control
- CIS01US05_TC_017: Complaint Creation API
Regression Test Suite (89 Test Cases)
Execution Time: 4.5 hours
Execution Frequency: Before each release
Criteria: P1-P2 priority, automated tests
Included Test Cases:
- All Smoke Test Cases
- CIS01US05_TC_004: Complaint Listing
- CIS01US05_TC_005: Customer Search
- CIS01US05_TC_006: File Upload
- CIS01US05_TC_007: Business Rules
- CIS01US05_TC_009: Performance Testing
- CIS01US05_TC_011: Service Order Integration
- CIS01US05_TC_012: Communication Integration
- CIS01US05_TC_014: Data Protection
- CIS01US05_TC_016: Error Handling
- CIS01US05_TC_018: Search API
Full Test Suite (156 Test Cases)
Execution Time: 12 hours
Execution Frequency: Weekly or major release cycles
Criteria: All test cases including edge cases
Additional Test Cases:
- All Regression Test Cases
- CIS01US05_TC_010: File Upload Performance
- CIS01US05_TC_015: Boundary Testing
- CIS01US05_TC_019: System Recovery
- Additional edge cases and error scenarios
DEPENDENCY MAP & EXECUTION ORDER
Test Execution Dependencies
Sequential Execution Requirements
- Authentication Tests → All other tests
- Dashboard Tests → Filtering and Export Tests
- Customer Creation → Customer Search Tests
- Basic Complaint Creation → Advanced Workflow Tests
- File Upload Basic → File Upload Performance Tests
Parallel Execution Opportunities
- Dashboard Analytics can run parallel with Security Testing
- API Tests can run parallel with UI Tests
- Performance Tests can run independently after functional validation
- Integration Tests can run parallel after basic functionality confirmed
External System Dependencies
Service Dependencies
- Authentication Service: Required for all test execution
- Database Service: Critical for data-dependent tests
- File Storage Service: Required for upload/attachment tests
- Email Service: Required for communication integration tests
- Service Order API: Required for integration tests
Dependency Health Checks
Before Test Execution:
1. Verify Authentication Service (Response Time < 1s)
2. Check Database Connectivity (Connection Pool > 50%)
3. Validate File Storage Access (Upload/Download < 5s)
4. Test Email Service Availability (Send Test Message)
5. Confirm Service Order API Status (Health Check Endpoint)PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS & ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Response Time Benchmarks
Operation | Target Response Time | Maximum Acceptable |
|---|---|---|
Dashboard Load | < 3 seconds | < 5 seconds |
Complaint Creation | < 2 seconds per step | < 4 seconds per step |
Customer Search | < 500ms | < 1 second |
File Upload (10MB) | < 30 seconds | < 60 seconds |
Receipt Generation | < 2 seconds | < 4 seconds |
API Calls | < 500ms | < 1 second |
Concurrent User Benchmarks
User Load | Expected Performance | Degradation Threshold |
|---|---|---|
1-10 users | Baseline performance | N/A |
11-25 users | < 10% degradation | 15% degradation |
26-50 users | < 20% degradation | 30% degradation |
51+ users | Graceful degradation | System failure |
System Reliability Benchmarks
Metric | Target | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
Uptime | 99.9% | Monthly average |
Data Accuracy | 99.99% | Error rate per transaction |
Security Incidents | 0 | Per month |
Recovery Time | < 30 seconds | From failure detection |
API TEST COLLECTION FOR CRITICAL OPERATIONS (Importance >=7)
Authentication APIs
POST /api/auth/login (Importance: 10)
POST /api/auth/logout (Importance: 9)
POST /api/auth/refresh (Importance: 9)Complaint Management APIs
POST /api/complaints (Importance: 10)
GET /api/complaints/{id} (Importance: 9)
PUT /api/complaints/{id}/status (Importance: 9)
GET /api/complaints/search (Importance: 8)
POST /api/complaints/{id}/attachments (Importance: 8)Customer Management APIs
GET /api/customers/search (Importance: 9)
GET /api/customers/{id} (Importance: 8)
POST /api/customers (Importance: 7)Integration APIs
POST /api/service-orders (Importance: 8)
POST /api/communications (Importance: 7)
GET /api/dashboard/metrics (Importance: 7)VALIDATION CHECKLIST SUMMARY
Acceptance Criteria Coverage ✓
- [x] All 25 acceptance criteria covered
- [x] Business rules tested with weighted calculations
- [x] Cross-browser compatibility (Chrome Latest)
- [x] Integration points tested
- [x] Security considerations addressed
- [x] Performance benchmarks defined
Test Quality Standards ✓
- [x] Realistic water utility test data provided
- [x] Clear dependency mapping
- [x] Proper tagging for all 17 reports
- [x] Edge cases covered (80% detail level)
- [x] API tests for critical operations (>=7 importance)
- [x] Complete navigation flow from login included
Framework Compliance ✓
- [x] Enhanced test case structure implemented
- [x] Business context and quality metrics defined
- [x] Stakeholder reporting categories assigned
- [x] Coverage tracking implemented
- [x] Test relationships mapped
- [x] Execution analytics planned
RISK ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION
High-Risk Areas Identified
- File Upload Security - Mitigation: Comprehensive security testing
- Database Performance - Mitigation: Load testing with large datasets
- Integration Failures - Mitigation: Robust error handling tests
- Data Privacy - Mitigation: Extensive data protection testing
Critical Success Factors
- User Experience - Smooth workflow completion
- Data Integrity - No data loss or corruption
- System Performance - Meets all benchmarks
- Security Compliance - Passes all security tests
No Comments