Dashboard--Compliance Management (AX01US05)
Comprehensive Test Cases - Compliance Management (AX01US05)
Test Scenario Summary
This document covers comprehensive test scenarios for the Compliance Management module of SMART360 Asset Management system, supporting all 17 BrowserStack test management reports. The test cases focus on Asset Manager (Compliance Focus) workflows including predictive monitoring, violation response, regulatory reporting, and public health protection.
Coverage Overview:
- Functional Test Scenarios: 25 test cases covering core compliance features
- Integration Test Scenarios: 12 test cases for external system interactions
- Performance Test Scenarios: 8 test cases for load and response time validation
- Security Test Scenarios: 15 test cases for B2B utility SaaS security requirements
- Edge Case & Error Scenarios: 18 test cases for boundary conditions and failure handling
TEST CASE 1: Compliance Dashboard Access and Overview Display
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_001
- Title: Verify Compliance Dashboard loads with correct KPIs and overview data
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/UI
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Smoke
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: Enterprise/SMB/All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Low
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 3 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 15% (Dashboard overview portion)
- Integration_Points: LIMS, SCADA, CMMS
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Dashboard
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: QA
- Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Executive-Dashboard
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: LIMS service, SCADA system, CMMS database
- Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds page load
- Data_Requirements: Active compliance data for last 90 days
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Compliance module activated in SMART360
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager (Compliance Focus) role
- Test_Data:
- Overall Compliance: 66.7%
- Quality Exceedances: 8 instances
- Water Quality Monitor: 89.3%
- Overdue Inspections: 3 pending
- Customer Complaints: 12 water quality complaints
- Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication must pass
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Login to SMART360 with Asset Manager credentials | Login successful, dashboard loads | Username: asset.manager@utilityco.com, Password: SecurePass123! | Verify session establishment |
2 | Navigate to Compliance tab from top navigation | Compliance dashboard loads within 3 seconds | N/A | Monitor page load performance |
3 | Verify Overall Compliance KPI display | Shows 66.7% with appropriate color coding (Red/Yellow based on threshold) | Expected: 66.7% | Validate calculation accuracy |
4 | Verify Quality Exceedances counter | Shows "8" with "This month" subtitle | Expected: 8 exceedances | Check data refresh timestamp |
5 | Verify Water Quality Monitor percentage | Shows 89.3% with progress bar visualization | Expected: 89.3% | Validate progress bar accuracy |
6 | Verify Overdue Inspections count | Shows "3" with "Pending" status | Expected: 3 overdue | Check status indicator |
7 | Verify Customer Complaints display | Shows "12" with downward trend arrow (↓ 18.5%) | Expected: 12 complaints, -18.5% trend | Validate trend calculation |
8 | Check "Last Updated" timestamp | Displays current timestamp within 4 hours for water quality data | Within 4-hour window | Verify data freshness |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: All KPI values display correctly with proper formatting and color coding
- Secondary_Verifications: Page loads within performance baseline, data timestamps are current, navigation elements are functional
- Negative_Verification: No error messages, no broken UI elements, no missing data indicators
TEST CASE 2: Primary Standards Compliance Monitoring
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_002
- Title: Validate Primary Standards Compliance watchlist displays correct parameter status
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 20% (Primary standards monitoring)
- Integration_Points: LIMS, Regulatory-Database
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Standards
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Integration-Testing, Regulatory-Compliance
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: LIMS system, Regulatory standards database
- Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds data refresh
- Data_Requirements: Recent sample results for key contaminants
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: LIMS integration configured, regulatory limits loaded
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager (Compliance Focus) access
- Test_Data:
- Total Coliform: 0 / 5% (OK status)
- Lead (90th percentile): 8.2 / 15 ppb (OK status)
- Copper: 0.95 / 1.3 ppm (OK status)
- TTHMs: 67 / 80 ppb (WARN status - approaching limit)
- Prior_Test_Cases: AX01US05_TC_001 must pass
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access Primary Standards Compliance section | Section loads with parameter watchlist | N/A | Verify section visibility |
2 | Verify Total Coliform parameter display | Shows "0 / 5%" with OK status and green indicator | Result: 0, Limit: 5%, Status: OK | Check status color coding |
3 | Verify Lead parameter display | Shows "8.2 / 15 ppb" with OK status | Result: 8.2 ppb, Limit: 15 ppb, Status: OK | Validate units display |
4 | Verify Copper parameter display | Shows "0.95 / 1.3 ppm" with OK status | Result: 0.95 ppm, Limit: 1.3 ppm, Status: OK | Check decimal precision |
5 | Verify TTHMs parameter with WARN status | Shows "67 / 80 ppb" with WARN status and yellow indicator | Result: 67 ppb, Limit: 80 ppb, Status: WARN | Validate warning threshold (>80% of limit) |
6 | Check Last Sample Date for each parameter | Each parameter shows recent sample date | Within last 30 days for each | Verify data currency |
7 | Hover over WARN status parameter | Tooltip displays warning explanation | "Latest sample for TTHMs was 67 ppb against a limit of 80 ppb..." | Test hover functionality |
8 | Verify parameter sorting | Parameters sorted by status (WARN first, then OK) | WARN status items appear first | Check sorting logic |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: All parameters display correct results, limits, and status indicators
- Secondary_Verifications: Tooltips work properly, status color coding is accurate, sample dates are current
- Negative_Verification: No parameters show incorrect status, no missing data, no calculation errors
TEST CASE 3: Active Violations Response Management
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_003
- Title: Verify active violations display with correct severity classification and response workflows
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 25% (Violation management workflow)
- Integration_Points: CMMS, Notification-Service, Regulatory-API
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Violations
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Product
- Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Violation-Tracking, Customer-Impact
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: CMMS system, Notification service, Work order system
- Performance_Baseline: < 1 second violation display
- Data_Requirements: Active violations with various severity levels
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Violation management workflows configured
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with violation response permissions
- Test_Data:
- Violation 1: Monitoring Violation (Total Coliform) - MAJOR severity
- Violation 2: Treatment Technique (Disinfection) - CRITICAL severity
- Violation 3: Public Notification - MINOR severity
- Prior_Test_Cases: Dashboard access test must pass
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to Active Violations section | Section displays with violation cards | N/A | Check section loading |
2 | Verify violation sorting order | Violations sorted by severity (CRITICAL, MAJOR, MINOR) then due date | Expected order: Critical → Major → Minor | Validate sorting algorithm |
3 | Check CRITICAL violation display | Shows red card with "CRITICAL" tag, violation details visible | Treatment Technique violation with red styling | Verify critical color coding |
4 | Verify MAJOR violation information | Shows orange card with violation type, parameter, dates | Monitoring Violation, Total Coliform, detected Jan 15, due Feb 15 | Check data completeness |
5 | Validate status tags on violations | Each violation shows status (CORRECTING, MONITORING, INVESTIGATING) | Various status indicators | Verify status accuracy |
6 | Click on CRITICAL violation card | Opens detailed violation response workflow | Treatment Technique violation details | Test navigation functionality |
7 | Verify due date highlighting | Overdue violations show visual emphasis | Red highlighting for past due dates | Check date comparison logic |
8 | Test violation filtering functionality | Clicking violation type filters dashboard to that violation context | Filter applies to entire dashboard | Verify filter integration |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Violations display with correct severity classification and complete information
- Secondary_Verifications: Status indicators are accurate, sorting works properly, clicking opens detailed views
- Negative_Verification: No violations show incorrect severity, no missing critical information, no broken navigation
TEST CASE 4: Sampling Schedule Progress Tracking
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_004
- Title: Validate sampling schedule displays correct progress tracking and status indicators
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/UI
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Manual
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: Medium
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 15% (Sampling schedule portion)
- Integration_Points: Laboratory-Schedule, Calendar-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Sampling
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: QA
- Report_Categories: Module-Coverage, Sampling-Compliance
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Laboratory scheduling system
- Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds refresh
- Data_Requirements: Sampling schedules for multiple facilities/networks
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Sampling schedules configured in system
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager read access to sampling data
- Test_Data:
- Bacteriological: 28/30 samples (BEHIND status)
- Chemical: 45/50 samples (ON TRACK status)
- Radiological: 2/4 samples (OVERDUE status)
- Prior_Test_Cases: Dashboard access verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Locate Sampling Schedule section | Section visible with progress tracker rows | N/A | Verify section rendering |
2 | Verify Bacteriological sampling progress | Shows "28/30" with BEHIND status and yellow indicator | Progress: 28/30, Status: BEHIND | Check progress calculation |
3 | Check Chemical sampling display | Shows "45/50" with ON TRACK status and green indicator | Progress: 45/50, Status: ON TRACK | Validate on-track logic |
4 | Verify Radiological sampling status | Shows "2/4" with OVERDUE status and red indicator | Progress: 2/4, Status: OVERDUE | Check overdue detection |
5 | Validate progress bar visualization | Progress bars accurately reflect completion percentage | Visual bars match numerical values | Test visual accuracy |
6 | Check frequency display | Each row shows sampling frequency (Daily, Monthly, Quarterly) | Various frequencies shown | Verify frequency accuracy |
7 | Verify Next Due Date column | Shows upcoming due dates for each sampling category | Realistic future dates | Check date calculation |
8 | Test hover tooltip on status indicators | Tooltips explain status meanings and current pace | Detailed status explanations | Verify tooltip content |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Progress tracking accurately reflects sampling completion status
- Secondary_Verifications: Status indicators match progress calculations, visual elements display correctly
- Negative_Verification: No incorrect progress calculations, no missing status indicators
TEST CASE 5: Facility Performance Summary Comparison
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_005
- Title: Verify facility performance cards display comparative compliance metrics
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: Enterprise
- Revenue_Impact: Medium
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 5 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 18% (Facility comparison functionality)
- Integration_Points: Facility-Database, Asset-Management
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Facilities
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Facility-Performance, Comparative-Analysis
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Facility management system, Asset database
- Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds for facility data load
- Data_Requirements: Multiple facilities with compliance and operational data
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Multiple facilities configured with compliance data
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager access to facility performance data
- Test_Data:
- Main Treatment Plant: 92.5% compliance, 15 MGD capacity, 1 violation, COMPLIANT status
- South Water Treatment: 87.3% compliance, 8 MGD capacity, 2 violations, WARNING status
- East Facility: 78.1% compliance, 5 MGD capacity, 4 violations, VIOLATION status
- Prior_Test_Cases: Dashboard access established
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Navigate to Facility Performance Summary | Section loads with facility cards | N/A | Check section rendering |
2 | Verify Main Treatment Plant card | Shows facility name, 92.5% compliance score, 15 MGD capacity, 1 violation, COMPLIANT status with green indicator | All specified data visible | Check highest performing facility |
3 | Check South Water Treatment facility | Displays 87.3% compliance, 8 MGD capacity, 2 violations, WARNING status with yellow indicator | Warning status data accurate | Validate warning threshold |
4 | Verify East Facility with violations | Shows 78.1% compliance, 5 MGD capacity, 4 violations, VIOLATION status with red indicator | Violation status correctly identified | Check violation status logic |
5 | Validate last inspection dates | Each facility card shows recent inspection date | Realistic inspection dates | Verify date display format |
6 | Check facility location/district display | Location information visible for each facility | Geographic identifiers shown | Verify location data |
7 | Click on facility card | Dashboard filters to selected facility, all widgets update to facility-specific data | Filter applies to entire dashboard | Test filtering functionality |
8 | Verify facility card sorting | Cards arranged by compliance performance or status priority | Logical arrangement of cards | Check sorting algorithm |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Facility cards display accurate comparative compliance metrics
- Secondary_Verifications: Status indicators match compliance scores, filtering works correctly
- Negative_Verification: No facilities show incorrect status, no missing critical data
TEST CASE 6: Date Range Filter Functionality
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_006
- Title: Validate date range filtering updates all dashboard components correctly
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/UI
- Test Level: Integration
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: Low
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: No
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Low
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Low
- Failure_Impact: Low
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 12% (Filter functionality)
- Integration_Points: Data-Aggregation, Dashboard-Components
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Common-Filters
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: QA
- Report_Categories: UI-Testing, Filter-Validation
- Trend_Tracking: No
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: Low
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Safari 16+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Data aggregation service
- Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds filter application
- Data_Requirements: Historical compliance data spanning multiple time periods
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Historical compliance data available for different time periods
- User_Roles_Permissions: Standard Asset Manager access
- Test_Data: Compliance data for Last 30 Days, Last 90 Days, Year-to-Date periods
- Prior_Test_Cases: Dashboard access working
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Verify default date range selection | Dashboard defaults to "Last 90 Days" view | Default: Last 90 Days | Check initial state |
2 | Click on date range filter dropdown | Dropdown shows all available options (Last 30 Days, Last 90 Days, Year-to-Date, Last Fiscal Year, Custom Range) | All 5 options visible | Verify dropdown functionality |
3 | Select "Last 30 Days" option | All KPIs and data refresh to show 30-day period, loading indicator appears during refresh | Data updates across all widgets | Test filter application |
4 | Verify KPI value changes | Overall compliance percentage updates to reflect 30-day period | Different values from 90-day view | Check data accuracy |
5 | Check violations and exceedances update | Active violations and quality exceedances counts adjust for new time period | Count changes appropriately | Verify count recalculation |
6 | Select "Year-to-Date" filter | Dashboard recalculates all metrics for current year period | YTD data displayed | Test longer time period |
7 | Verify "Custom Range" functionality | Opens date picker allowing start and end date selection | Date picker appears | Check custom range option |
8 | Apply custom date range | Dashboard updates to show data for selected custom period | User-defined period data | Test custom filtering |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Date range filter successfully updates all dashboard components
- Secondary_Verifications: Performance meets baseline during filter changes, all data accurately reflects selected time period
- Negative_Verification: No components fail to update, no performance degradation, no incorrect date calculations
TEST CASE 7: Predictive Compliance Alert System
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_007
- Title: Verify predictive compliance monitoring generates alerts before violations occur
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: Medium
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 30% (Predictive monitoring core functionality)
- Integration_Points: AI-Analytics, Asset-Management, SCADA, Alert-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Predictive
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Product
- Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Predictive-Analytics, Risk-Management
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: AI analytics service, Asset condition monitoring, SCADA integration
- Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds alert generation
- Data_Requirements: Historical water quality trends, asset condition data
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Predictive analytics engine configured, asset correlation models active
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with predictive alert access and maintenance coordination permissions
- Test_Data:
- Chlorine residual trending downward: 0.8 ppm (approaching 0.5 ppm minimum)
- Asset condition: Chlorine injection pump at 72% health score
- Predicted violation: Total coliform risk in 15 days without intervention
- Prior_Test_Cases: Dashboard access and violation management tests must pass
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access predictive alerts dashboard section | Predictive monitoring panel displays with risk indicators | N/A | Check predictive panel availability |
2 | Verify early warning alert generation | System displays alert for chlorine residual decline trend | Alert: "Chlorine levels trending below minimum - intervention recommended within 7 days" | Test alert generation logic |
3 | Check asset correlation in alert | Alert shows related asset (chlorine injection pump) with condition score | Asset: CHL-001, Condition: 72%, Recommendation: Immediate maintenance | Verify asset-compliance correlation |
4 | Validate prediction timeline | Alert specifies predicted violation timeframe (15 days) | Timeline: "Potential coliform violation in 15 days without corrective action" | Check prediction accuracy |
5 | Test preventive action trigger | Click alert to generate preventive maintenance work order | Work order created automatically with priority flagging | Verify workflow integration |
6 | Verify risk score calculation | System displays quantified compliance risk score | Risk Score: 8.5/10 (High) based on trend analysis | Check risk scoring algorithm |
7 | Check notification escalation | Alert escalates to maintenance team and operations manager | Notifications sent to relevant personnel | Test notification distribution |
8 | Validate alert resolution tracking | System tracks when preventive action resolves prediction | Alert status updates to "Resolved" when maintenance completed | Check resolution workflow |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Predictive alerts generate correctly with accurate asset correlation and timeline predictions
- Secondary_Verifications: Risk scores calculate properly, preventive actions trigger automatically, notifications reach appropriate personnel
- Negative_Verification: No false positive alerts, no missing critical predictions, no failed workflow integrations
TEST CASE 8: Automated Regulatory Reporting Generation
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_008
- Title: Verify automated compilation and submission of regulatory compliance reports
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 35% (Automated reporting functionality)
- Integration_Points: LIMS, Regulatory-Portal, Document-Management, Audit-Trail
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Reporting
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Regulatory-Compliance, Integration-Testing, Audit-Trail
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: LIMS integration, Regulatory submission portal, Document storage
- Performance_Baseline: < 30 seconds report generation
- Data_Requirements: Complete monthly compliance data for automated compilation
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Regulatory reporting templates configured, submission portals connected
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with report generation and submission authority
- Test_Data:
- Monthly Water Quality Compliance Report template
- Overall Compliance: 89.3% (Target: 95%)
- Total Coliform: 94.5% compliance, Lead: 98.2% compliance, TTHMs: 87.3% compliance
- 3 minor violations, 1 major violation reported
- Prior_Test_Cases: Data integration and dashboard functionality verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access regulatory reporting module | Reporting dashboard loads with scheduled and available reports | N/A | Check module accessibility |
2 | Select "Monthly Water Quality Report" | Template loads with auto-populated compliance data | Report type: Monthly Water Quality Compliance | Verify template selection |
3 | Verify automatic data compilation | All compliance metrics populate from integrated systems | Overall: 89.3%, Coliform: 94.5%, Lead: 98.2%, TTHMs: 87.3% | Check data auto-population |
4 | Validate violation summary inclusion | Report includes violation details with severity classification | 3 minor violations, 1 major violation with descriptions | Verify violation integration |
5 | Check audit trail documentation | Supporting documentation automatically attached with metadata | Complete audit trail with timestamps and data sources | Test documentation compilation |
6 | Review data validation checks | System performs quality checks and flags inconsistencies | Validation passes with green indicators | Check data validation |
7 | Generate final report | PDF report creates with proper formatting and regulatory compliance | Professional formatted regulatory submission | Test report generation |
8 | Verify submission tracking | System logs submission with confirmation tracking | Submission logged with timestamp and confirmation number | Check submission workflow |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Automated report generation includes all required compliance data with proper formatting
- Secondary_Verifications: Data validation works correctly, audit trails are complete, submission tracking functions properly
- Negative_Verification: No missing required data, no formatting errors, no submission failures
TEST CASE 9: Public Health Notification Management
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_009
- Title: Validate intelligent public notification system with risk-based communication protocols
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Manual
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 25% (Public notification system)
- Integration_Points: Customer-Database, Communication-Channels, GIS-Mapping
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Notifications
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: CSM
- Report_Categories: Customer-Impact, Public-Health, Communication-Effectiveness
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Customer database, SMS/Email services, GIS mapping system
- Performance_Baseline: < 2 minutes notification delivery
- Data_Requirements: Customer database with geographic mapping, violation severity data
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Communication channels configured, customer database populated with geographic data
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with public notification authority
- Test_Data:
- Tier 2 Monitoring Violation affecting 13,000 customers in Downtown service area
- Total coliform bacteria exceeded action level
- Health Risk: Low - Not immediate health threat
- Prior_Test_Cases: Violation detection and classification working
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Trigger notification from active violation | Public notification workflow activates automatically | Violation: Tier 2 Monitoring (Total Coliform) | Test automatic triggering |
2 | Verify risk assessment calculation | System calculates health risk as "Low" with no immediate threat | Risk Level: Low, No boil water order required | Check risk assessment logic |
3 | Check affected population analysis | System identifies 13,000 customers in Downtown service area using GIS mapping | Population: 13,000, Area: Downtown service area | Verify geographic analysis |
4 | Validate notification template selection | Appropriate template selected based on violation type and severity | Template: Tier 2 Monitoring Violation | Check template logic |
5 | Review multi-channel communication setup | Notification prepared for website, local newspaper, and direct mail | Channels: Website, newspaper, direct mail | Test multi-channel setup |
6 | Verify customer action guidance | Notification includes appropriate customer actions and utility response | Actions: "Continue normal use", Response: "Increased monitoring completed" | Check guidance accuracy |
7 | Test delivery tracking | System tracks notification delivery across all channels | Delivery confirmation for each channel | Verify tracking functionality |
8 | Validate resolution communication | Follow-up notification sent when violation resolved | Resolution notice: "Additional testing completed, normal operations restored" | Test resolution workflow |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Public notifications accurately reflect violation severity and provide appropriate customer guidance
- Secondary_Verifications: Geographic targeting works correctly, multi-channel delivery succeeds, tracking functions properly
- Negative_Verification: No inappropriate notifications sent, no missing critical information, no delivery failures
TEST CASE 10: Asset-Compliance Integration Analysis
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_010
- Title: Verify integration between asset condition monitoring and compliance risk assessment
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Integration/API
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 40% (Asset-compliance correlation functionality)
- Integration_Points: Asset-Management, Maintenance-System, Financial-Planning
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Asset-Integration
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Integration-Testing, Asset-Performance, Risk-Management
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Asset management system, Maintenance CMMS, Financial planning module
- Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds correlation analysis
- Data_Requirements: Asset condition data, maintenance history, compliance impact metrics
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Asset management integration configured, correlation algorithms calibrated
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with cross-module access
- Test_Data:
- Chlorine Injection System (CHL-001): 72% health score, primary disinfection asset
- Compliance Impact: High risk for coliform violations
- Maintenance Cost: $15,000, Penalty Risk: $50,000
- ROI: 233% penalty avoidance through preventive maintenance
- Prior_Test_Cases: Asset condition monitoring and compliance tracking operational
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access asset-compliance correlation dashboard | Integration panel loads showing asset-compliance relationships | N/A | Check integration interface |
2 | Select Chlorine Injection System asset | Asset details display with compliance impact analysis | Asset: CHL-001, Health: 72%, Impact: High coliform risk | Verify asset selection |
3 | Verify compliance risk calculation | System shows quantified compliance risk based on asset condition | Risk Level: High - potential disinfection failures | Check risk calculation |
4 | Validate maintenance recommendation | System recommends immediate pump maintenance with cost analysis | Recommendation: Immediate maintenance, Cost: $15,000 | Test recommendation logic |
5 | Check penalty avoidance analysis | ROI calculation shows $50,000 penalty risk vs $15,000 maintenance cost | ROI: 233% penalty avoidance | Verify financial analysis |
6 | Test work order integration | Compliance-driven maintenance work order generates automatically | Work order created with compliance priority flag | Check workflow integration |
7 | Verify asset prioritization update | Asset moves up in maintenance priority queue due to compliance risk | Priority increased to "Critical - Compliance Risk" | Test prioritization logic |
8 | Validate tracking and documentation | System documents compliance-asset correlation decision with audit trail | Complete documentation of decision rationale | Check audit trail creation |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Asset condition accurately correlates with compliance risk assessment and maintenance recommendations
- Secondary_Verifications: Financial analysis is correct, work order integration functions, audit trails are complete
- Negative_Verification: No incorrect risk assessments, no failed integrations, no missing financial calculations
TEST CASE 11: Mobile Access for Field Compliance Inspections
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_011
- Title: Validate mobile device access for real-time field compliance data entry and inspection workflows
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/UI
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Manual
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: Medium
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 20% (Mobile compliance access)
- Integration_Points: Mobile-App, Offline-Sync, GPS-Location
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Mobile
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Mobile
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: QA
- Report_Categories: Mobile-Testing, Field-Operations
- Trend_Tracking: No
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Mobile Safari 16+, Chrome Mobile 115+
- Device/OS: iOS 16+, Android 13+
- Screen_Resolution: Mobile-375x667, Tablet-1024x768
- Dependencies: GPS services, Offline data sync capability
- Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds page load on mobile
- Data_Requirements: Field inspection forms and compliance checklists
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Mobile app configured, offline sync enabled
- User_Roles_Permissions: Field inspector access with mobile data entry permissions
- Test_Data: Sample inspection checklist, GPS coordinates for test facility
- Prior_Test_Cases: Web dashboard functionality verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access SMART360 via mobile device | Mobile-responsive interface loads properly | N/A | Check mobile responsiveness |
2 | Navigate to field inspection module | Inspection forms display optimized for mobile screen | N/A | Verify mobile UI adaptation |
3 | Start new compliance inspection | Form loads with GPS location capture | Location: Test facility coordinates | Check GPS integration |
4 | Complete inspection checklist items | Touch-friendly interface allows easy data entry | Sample checklist with pass/fail items | Test mobile input methods |
5 | Capture photos for compliance documentation | Camera integration works, photos attach to inspection | Sample compliance photos | Verify camera functionality |
6 | Test offline data entry capability | Data entry continues without internet connection | Offline mode activated | Check offline functionality |
7 | Sync data when connection restored | Offline data uploads automatically when online | Data synchronization successful | Test sync capability |
8 | Verify real-time dashboard update | Web dashboard reflects field-entered data immediately | Inspection data appears on web dashboard | Check real-time integration |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Mobile interface provides full compliance inspection functionality with proper responsive design
- Secondary_Verifications: GPS location works correctly, offline sync functions properly, camera integration successful
- Negative_Verification: No mobile UI issues, no sync failures, no data loss during offline operation
TEST CASE 12: Performance Load Testing for Compliance Dashboard
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_012
- Title: Validate compliance dashboard performance under concurrent user load and large data sets
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Performance
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Performance
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: Enterprise
- Revenue_Impact: Medium
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: No
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 20 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Low
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 10% (Performance validation)
- Integration_Points: Database-Performance, API-Load, Cache-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Performance
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Performance-Testing, System-Scalability
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Performance
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (load testing tools)
- Device/OS: Load testing environment
- Screen_Resolution: N/A (automated testing)
- Dependencies: Load testing tools, Performance monitoring
- Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds page load, < 500ms API response
- Data_Requirements: Large dataset with 100k+ compliance records
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Performance testing environment configured, large test dataset loaded
- User_Roles_Permissions: Multiple test user accounts for concurrent access simulation
- Test_Data: 100,000+ compliance records, 1000+ active violations, 500+ facilities
- Prior_Test_Cases: Functional compliance dashboard tests passed
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Baseline single user performance | Dashboard loads in < 3 seconds, API calls < 500ms | Single user baseline metrics | Establish performance baseline |
2 | Simulate 50 concurrent users | System maintains < 5 second response times | 50 simultaneous dashboard loads | Test moderate concurrent load |
3 | Increase to 100 concurrent users | Response times remain under 8 seconds | 100 users accessing different modules | Test higher concurrency |
4 | Load test with large dataset queries | Complex filter operations complete within 10 seconds | Queries across 100k+ records | Test data volume handling |
5 | Stress test dashboard refreshes | Real-time data updates handle 200 concurrent refreshes | 200 users refreshing simultaneously | Test refresh performance |
6 | Test memory usage during peak load | System memory usage remains stable, no memory leaks | Monitor system resources | Check resource management |
7 | Validate database performance | Database response times stay within acceptable limits | Monitor DB query performance | Test database scalability |
8 | Recovery test after peak load | System returns to baseline performance after load removal | Performance returns to normal | Test system recovery |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Dashboard maintains acceptable performance under concurrent user load
- Secondary_Verifications: Database performance stays within limits, memory usage is stable, API response times acceptable
- Negative_Verification: No system crashes, no significant performance degradation, no resource exhaustion
TEST CASE 13: Security Testing for B2B Utility SaaS Access
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_013
- Title: Validate security controls for compliance data access, authentication, and audit trails
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Security
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Security
- Automation Status: Manual
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 15 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 100% (Security validation)
- Integration_Points: Authentication-System, Authorization-Service, Audit-Logger
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Security-Compliance
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Security-Testing, Vulnerability-Assessment, Audit-Compliance
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Security-Testing
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 118+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Security testing tools, Audit logging system
- Performance_Baseline: N/A (security focused)
- Data_Requirements: Test accounts with different permission levels
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Security testing environment configured, multiple user roles created
- User_Roles_Permissions: Various test accounts (Asset Manager, Read-only, Unauthorized)
- Test_Data: Sensitive compliance data, test injection payloads
- Prior_Test_Cases: Basic functionality verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Test unauthorized access attempts | System blocks access to compliance data without proper authentication | Unauthorized user credentials | Verify access control |
2 | Validate role-based access control | Read-only users cannot modify compliance data or create work orders | Read-only test account | Test permission enforcement |
3 | Test SQL injection prevention | System sanitizes inputs and prevents database manipulation | Malicious SQL payloads in search fields | Check input validation |
4 | Verify XSS attack prevention | System escapes malicious scripts and prevents execution | XSS test payloads in form fields | Test script injection protection |
5 | Validate session management | Sessions timeout appropriately, concurrent sessions handled securely | Multiple login attempts, session timeout | Check session security |
6 | Test audit trail logging | All compliance data access and modifications are logged with timestamps | Various user actions | Verify audit logging |
7 | Check data encryption in transit | HTTPS encryption active for all compliance data transmission | Network traffic analysis | Test encryption implementation |
8 | Verify sensitive data handling | PII and compliance data properly masked/protected in logs and displays | Customer information display | Check data protection |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: All security controls properly protect compliance data and prevent unauthorized access
- Secondary_Verifications: Audit trails are complete, encryption works properly, input validation is effective
- Negative_Verification: No successful unauthorized access, no data leakage, no security bypass methods work
TEST CASE 14: LIMS Integration for Water Quality Data
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_014
- Title: Verify Laboratory Information Management System integration for automated water quality data import
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Integration/API
- Test Level: Integration
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Integration
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 30% (LIMS integration functionality)
- Integration_Points: LIMS-API, Data-Transformation, Real-time-Sync
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Integration-LIMS
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Integration-Testing, API-Performance, Data-Quality
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Integration-Testing
- Browser/Version: N/A (API testing)
- Device/OS: Server environment
- Screen_Resolution: N/A
- Dependencies: LIMS system, API gateway, Data transformation service
- Performance_Baseline: < 4 hours data synchronization
- Data_Requirements: Sample LIMS data with various contaminant results
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: LIMS API connection configured, data transformation mappings established
- User_Roles_Permissions: System integration service account with LIMS read access
- Test_Data:
- Sample ID: WQ-2024-001, Total Coliform: 0 CFU/100ml, Collection Date: Current date
- Sample ID: WQ-2024-002, Lead: 8.2 ppb, Collection Date: Current date-1
- Sample ID: WQ-2024-003, TTHMs: 67 ppb, Collection Date: Current date-2
- Prior_Test_Cases: API connectivity and authentication verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Initiate LIMS data synchronization | API connection established, authentication successful | N/A | Test API connectivity |
2 | Retrieve new sample results from LIMS | New water quality samples pulled from LIMS database | Sample IDs: WQ-2024-001, WQ-2024-002, WQ-2024-003 | Verify data retrieval |
3 | Validate data transformation | LIMS data correctly mapped to SMART360 compliance schema | Proper field mapping and units conversion | Check transformation logic |
4 | Verify automatic compliance evaluation | System evaluates results against regulatory limits and flags exceedances | Auto-evaluation of each parameter | Test compliance logic |
5 | Check dashboard updates | Primary Standards Compliance section updates with new sample data | New results appear in compliance dashboard | Verify real-time updates |
6 | Validate timestamp accuracy | Sample collection dates and analysis dates properly synchronized | Timestamps within 4-hour update window | Check time synchronization |
7 | Test error handling for invalid data | System properly handles malformed or incomplete LIMS data | Test with corrupted sample data | Verify error handling |
8 | Verify audit trail creation | All data imports logged with source tracking and timestamps | Complete audit trail of LIMS integration | Check integration logging |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: LIMS data successfully imports and updates compliance monitoring automatically
- Secondary_Verifications: Data transformation is accurate, timestamps synchronize properly, error handling works
- Negative_Verification: No data corruption during import, no missed sample results, no synchronization failures
TEST CASE 15: Compliance Cost-Benefit Analysis Integration
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_015
- Title: Validate integration of compliance costs with asset investment planning and ROI analysis
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Integration/Functional
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Manual
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: Enterprise
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: No
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 22% (Financial integration functionality)
- Integration_Points: Financial-Planning, Asset-Management, Budget-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Financial
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Product
- Report_Categories: Financial-Analysis, ROI-Tracking, Budget-Planning
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Financial planning module, Asset management system, Budget tracking
- Performance_Baseline: < 5 seconds financial analysis
- Data_Requirements: Historical penalty costs, maintenance expenses, asset investment data
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Financial integration configured, historical cost data loaded
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with financial analysis access
- Test_Data:
- Current year penalties: $185K (22.5% increase from previous year)
- Preventive maintenance budget: $2.3M annually
- Asset investment options with compliance impact analysis
- Prior_Test_Cases: Asset-compliance integration verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access compliance financial analysis dashboard | Financial metrics display with penalty costs and trends | Current penalties: $185K, Trend: +22.5% | Check financial data integration |
2 | Review penalty cost breakdown by violation type | Detailed analysis shows cost attribution by compliance category | Breakdown by violation severity and type | Verify cost categorization |
3 | Analyze preventive maintenance ROI | System calculates ROI of preventive maintenance vs penalty avoidance | ROI analysis for maintenance investments | Check ROI calculations |
4 | Validate asset investment recommendations | Compliance-driven asset priorities show financial justification | Investment recommendations with compliance impact | Test recommendation logic |
5 | Review budget allocation optimization | System suggests optimal distribution between maintenance and compliance costs | Budget optimization recommendations | Verify optimization algorithms |
6 | Check penalty trend analysis | Historical penalty data shows trends and prediction modeling | 3-year penalty trend with projections | Test trend analysis |
7 | Validate compliance cost forecasting | Future compliance costs projected based on asset condition and maintenance plans | Cost forecasting for next fiscal year | Check forecasting accuracy |
8 | Test cost-benefit scenario analysis | System allows modeling different maintenance scenarios with compliance impact | Various investment scenarios with outcomes | Verify scenario modeling |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Financial analysis accurately integrates compliance costs with asset investment planning
- Secondary_Verifications: ROI calculations are correct, trend analysis is meaningful, scenario modeling works properly
- Negative_Verification: No incorrect financial calculations, no missing cost categories, no unrealistic projections
TEST CASE 16: Cross-Departmental Workflow Coordination
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_016
- Title: Verify coordination between compliance, operations, maintenance, and customer service departments
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Integration/Workflow
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 28% (Cross-departmental coordination)
- Integration_Points: Work-Management, Customer-Service, Operations-Planning, Billing-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Workflows
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: CSM
- Report_Categories: Workflow-Efficiency, Cross-Department-Coordination, Customer-Impact
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Work order system, Customer service platform, Operations scheduling, Billing integration
- Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds workflow initiation
- Data_Requirements: Multi-department user accounts and workflows
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Cross-department integrations configured, workflow automation enabled
- User_Roles_Permissions: Access to multiple department systems for testing coordination
- Test_Data:
- Sample violation requiring maintenance, customer notification, and billing adjustment
- Multi-department response team assignments
- Prior_Test_Cases: Individual department modules functioning properly
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Trigger compliance violation workflow | System automatically notifies all relevant departments | Violation: Water pressure issue affecting billing accuracy | Test automatic notification |
2 | Verify maintenance work order creation | Maintenance department receives prioritized work order with compliance context | Work order created with compliance flag and urgency | Check maintenance integration |
3 | Validate operations team notification | Operations team gets schedule coordination request for customer impact minimization | Operations scheduling request with customer impact data | Test operations coordination |
4 | Check customer service alert generation | Customer service receives proactive communication templates and affected customer lists | Customer service alert with communication templates | Verify customer service integration |
5 | Test billing system integration | Billing adjustments triggered for affected customers during compliance issue | Automatic billing credits/adjustments initiated | Check billing coordination |
6 | Verify workflow status tracking | All departments can view coordinated response status in real-time | Unified workflow status dashboard | Test status visibility |
7 | Check completion coordination | System coordinates final resolution across all departments | Coordinated completion with all department sign-offs | Verify completion workflow |
8 | Validate post-incident reporting | Comprehensive report generated showing cross-departmental response effectiveness | Multi-department performance report | Test reporting coordination |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Compliance violations trigger coordinated responses across all relevant departments
- Secondary_Verifications: Each department receives appropriate information and tasks, status tracking works, completion is coordinated
- Negative_Verification: No departments missed in notifications, no coordination failures, no duplicate efforts
TEST CASE 17: Regulatory Calendar and Deadline Management
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_017
- Title: Validate automated regulatory calendar management with deadline tracking and preparation workflows
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: Medium
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Low
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 15% (Calendar and deadline management)
- Integration_Points: Calendar-System, Notification-Service, Regulatory-Database
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Calendar
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: QA
- Report_Categories: Calendar-Management, Deadline-Tracking
- Trend_Tracking: No
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Calendar integration, Email notification service
- Performance_Baseline: < 2 seconds calendar load
- Data_Requirements: Regulatory calendar with various deadline types
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Regulatory calendar configured with standard compliance deadlines
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with calendar management access
- Test_Data:
- Monthly Water Quality Report: Due 15th of each month
- Annual Lead/Copper Report: Due March 31st
- Quarterly Consumer Confidence Report: Due July 1st
- Prior_Test_Cases: Basic dashboard access working
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access regulatory calendar module | Calendar displays with upcoming regulatory deadlines | N/A | Check calendar accessibility |
2 | Verify upcoming deadline alerts | System shows alerts for deadlines within next 30 days | Upcoming deadlines highlighted | Test alert generation |
3 | Check automatic reminder generation | Email reminders sent 30, 14, and 7 days before deadlines | Reminder emails generated automatically | Verify reminder scheduling |
4 | Test preparation workflow triggers | Clicking deadline initiates preparation workflow with checklist | Preparation checklist appears | Check workflow initiation |
5 | Verify deadline status tracking | System tracks preparation progress and completion status | Status indicators update properly | Test progress tracking |
6 | Check recurring deadline management | Monthly and quarterly deadlines automatically regenerate after completion | Next occurrence scheduled automatically | Verify recurring logic |
7 | Test custom deadline creation | User can add facility-specific or special regulatory deadlines | Custom deadline created successfully | Check customization capability |
8 | Validate calendar integration | Deadlines appear in integrated calendar systems and mobile devices | Calendar synchronization successful | Test external calendar sync |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Regulatory calendar accurately tracks deadlines and initiates preparation workflows
- Secondary_Verifications: Reminders generate properly, status tracking works, calendar integration successful
- Negative_Verification: No missed deadline alerts, no failed reminder delivery, no calendar sync issues
TEST CASE 18: Audit Trail and Documentation Management
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_018
- Title: Verify comprehensive audit trail creation and searchable documentation management for regulatory compliance
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Functional/Integration
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 25% (Audit trail and documentation)
- Integration_Points: Document-Management, Audit-Logger, Search-Engine
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Audit
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: Audit-Compliance, Documentation-Management
- Trend_Tracking: No
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Staging
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Document storage system, Search indexing service
- Performance_Baseline: < 3 seconds search results
- Data_Requirements: Historical compliance actions and documentation
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Audit logging enabled, document indexing configured
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager with audit trail access
- Test_Data: Various compliance actions with associated documentation and metadata
- Prior_Test_Cases: Compliance workflows generating audit data
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Access audit trail management module | Audit interface loads with search and filter capabilities | N/A | Check audit module access |
2 | Verify automatic audit trail creation | All compliance actions automatically logged with timestamps and user attribution | Sample compliance actions from previous tests | Test automatic logging |
3 | Check comprehensive metadata capture | Audit entries include action type, user, timestamp, before/after values, and justification | Detailed metadata for each logged action | Verify metadata completeness |
4 | Test advanced search functionality | Search by date range, user, action type, and keyword returns accurate results | Various search criteria and combinations | Check search accuracy |
5 | Verify document linking | Related documents automatically linked to audit entries with versioning | Documents linked with version control | Test document associations |
6 | Check data export capabilities | Audit data exports in multiple formats for regulatory submission | Export to PDF, Excel, CSV formats | Test export functionality |
7 | Validate retention policy enforcement | System maintains audit data according to regulatory retention requirements | Data retention for required timeframes | Check retention compliance |
8 | Test audit trail integrity | Audit entries cannot be modified or deleted, maintaining tamper-proof records | Attempt to modify audit records (should fail) | Verify data integrity |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Complete audit trail captures all compliance activities with tamper-proof integrity
- Secondary_Verifications: Search functionality works effectively, document linking is automatic, export formats are usable
- Negative_Verification: No audit data can be tampered with, no missing audit entries, no search failures
EDGE CASE TEST SCENARIOS
TEST CASE 19: System Failure Recovery During Critical Violations
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_019
- Title: Validate system recovery and data integrity during critical compliance violation processing failures
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Edge Case/Recovery
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Acceptance
- Automation Status: Manual
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 15 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: Medium
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 5% (Failure recovery scenarios)
- Integration_Points: Failover-System, Data-Recovery, Notification-Backup
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Recovery
- Requirement_Coverage: Partial
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: System-Reliability, Disaster-Recovery
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Disaster-Recovery
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Backup systems, Failover infrastructure
- Performance_Baseline: < 60 seconds failover time
- Data_Requirements: Critical violation scenario data
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Disaster recovery environment configured, backup systems operational
- User_Roles_Permissions: System administrator access for failure simulation
- Test_Data: Critical compliance violation in progress during system failure
- Prior_Test_Cases: Normal violation processing verified
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Initiate critical violation processing | Begin processing of major compliance violation requiring immediate response | Critical violation: E.coli detection requiring public notification | Setup baseline scenario |
2 | Simulate primary system failure | Trigger controlled system failure during violation processing | System failure during notification generation | Test failure simulation |
3 | Verify automatic failover activation | Backup systems activate within 60 seconds | Failover to secondary systems successful | Check failover timing |
4 | Check data integrity preservation | Violation data remains intact and processing state preserved | All violation data preserved without corruption | Verify data integrity |
5 | Validate notification system continuity | Public health notifications continue from backup systems | Critical notifications sent despite primary system failure | Test notification continuity |
6 | Test user session recovery | Users can continue compliance workflows after failover | Users reconnected to ongoing workflows | Check session recovery |
7 | Verify primary system restoration | Primary system comes back online with full data synchronization | Primary system restored with current data | Test restoration process |
8 | Validate post-recovery audit trail | Complete audit trail maintained including failure and recovery events | Audit log shows failure, failover, and recovery events | Check audit completeness |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Critical compliance violations continue processing through system failures without data loss
- Secondary_Verifications: Failover occurs within SLA timeframes, notifications continue, audit trail is complete
- Negative_Verification: No data loss during failure, no missed critical notifications, no extended downtime
TEST CASE 20: Boundary Value Testing for Regulatory Limits
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_020
- Title: Validate system behavior at regulatory limit boundaries and extreme threshold values
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: Edge Case/Boundary
- Test Level: System
- Priority: P2-High
- Execution Phase: Regression
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: Medium
- Business_Priority: Should-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: No
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: Medium
- Complexity_Level: Medium
- Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: Medium
- Failure_Impact: Medium
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 8% (Boundary condition handling)
- Integration_Points: Validation-Engine, Alert-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Compliance-Validation
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: Web
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: QA
- Report_Categories: Edge-Case-Testing, Data-Validation
- Trend_Tracking: No
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: Medium
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Testing
- Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
- Device/OS: Windows 10/11
- Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
- Dependencies: Validation service, Alert generation system
- Performance_Baseline: < 1 second validation response
- Data_Requirements: Test data at regulatory limit boundaries
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Regulatory limits configured in system
- User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager access for viewing compliance status
- Test_Data:
- Total Coliform: Test values at 0%, 4.9%, 5.0%, 5.1%
- Lead: Test values at 14.9 ppb, 15.0 ppb, 15.1 ppb
- TTHMs: Test values at 79.9 ppb, 80.0 ppb, 80.1 ppb (warning threshold)
- Prior_Test_Cases: Standard compliance monitoring functional
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Input Total Coliform at exactly 5.0% (regulatory limit) | System classifies as violation, triggers appropriate alerts | Total Coliform: 5.0% | Test exact boundary condition |
2 | Test Total Coliform at 4.9% (just below limit) | System shows OK status, no violation triggered | Total Coliform: 4.9% | Test below-boundary behavior |
3 | Test Total Coliform at 5.1% (just above limit) | System immediately flags as violation with appropriate severity | Total Coliform: 5.1% | Test above-boundary behavior |
4 | Input Lead at exactly 15.0 ppb (action level) | System triggers action level response protocols | Lead: 15.0 ppb | Test action level boundary |
5 | Test TTHMs at 64.0 ppb (80% of 80 ppb limit - warning threshold) | System shows WARN status with yellow indicator | TTHMs: 64.0 ppb | Test warning threshold calculation |
6 | Input extremely high value beyond typical ranges | System handles value appropriately without crashes | Lead: 999.9 ppb | Test upper boundary handling |
7 | Test negative values for parameters | System rejects negative values or handles as data quality issue | Total Coliform: -1% | Test invalid value handling |
8 | Input values with extreme precision | System properly rounds or handles decimal precision | Lead: 15.00001 ppb | Test precision handling |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: System correctly identifies violations and warnings at exact regulatory boundaries
- Secondary_Verifications: Status indicators change appropriately at thresholds, extreme values handled gracefully
- Negative_Verification: No false positives or negatives at boundaries, no system crashes with extreme values
API TEST CASES (Critical Level >=7)
TEST CASE 21: Compliance Data API Authentication and Authorization
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_021
- Title: Validate API security controls for compliance data access with role-based authorization
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: API/Security
- Test Level: Integration
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Security
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 100% (API security validation)
- Integration_Points: API-Gateway, Authentication-Service, Authorization-Engine
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-API-Security
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: API
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: API-Security, Authentication-Testing
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: Yes
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: API-Testing
- Browser/Version: N/A (API testing tools)
- Device/OS: Server environment
- Screen_Resolution: N/A
- Dependencies: API gateway, Authentication service, Authorization engine
- Performance_Baseline: < 200ms authentication response
- Data_Requirements: Test API keys and user tokens with various permission levels
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: API gateway configured, test authentication tokens generated
- User_Roles_Permissions: Various API access levels (Admin, Asset Manager, Read-only)
- Test_Data: Valid and invalid API keys, expired tokens, unauthorized access attempts
- Prior_Test_Cases: API infrastructure operational
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Attempt API access without authentication token | API returns 401 Unauthorized with proper error message | No authentication header | Test authentication requirement |
2 | Use invalid/malformed API key | API returns 401 Unauthorized, logs security attempt | Invalid key: "invalid_key_123" | Test invalid key handling |
3 | Use expired authentication token | API returns 401 Unauthorized with token expiry message | Expired JWT token | Test token expiration |
4 | Access compliance data with valid Asset Manager token | API returns 200 OK with compliance data | Valid Asset Manager API key | Test authorized access |
5 | Attempt write operations with read-only token | API returns 403 Forbidden for write operations | Read-only API token | Test authorization levels |
6 | Test rate limiting enforcement | API returns 429 Too Many Requests after exceeding limits | Exceed 100 requests per hour | Test rate limiting |
7 | Validate HTTPS-only enforcement | HTTP requests redirected to HTTPS or rejected | HTTP API request attempt | Test encryption requirement |
8 | Check API audit logging | All API calls logged with user, timestamp, and action | Review API access logs | Test comprehensive logging |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: API properly authenticates users and enforces role-based access controls
- Secondary_Verifications: Rate limiting works, audit logging is complete, HTTPS enforcement active
- Negative_Verification: No unauthorized access possible, no security bypass methods work
TEST CASE 22: Real-time Compliance Data Retrieval API
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_22
- Title: Validate real-time compliance data retrieval API performance and data accuracy
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: API/Performance
- Test Level: Integration
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Performance
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 35% (API data retrieval functionality)
- Integration_Points: Database-API, Real-time-Sync, Cache-System
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-API-Data-Retrieval
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: API
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: API-Performance, Real-time-Data
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Performance-Testing
- Browser/Version: N/A (API testing)
- Device/OS: Server environment
- Screen_Resolution: N/A
- Dependencies: Database cluster, Caching layer, Load balancer
- Performance_Baseline: < 500ms API response time
- Data_Requirements: Large compliance dataset for performance testing
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: Performance testing environment with realistic data volume
- User_Roles_Permissions: API access with performance testing permissions
- Test_Data: 100k+ compliance records, real-time violation data
- Prior_Test_Cases: API authentication working
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | GET /api/compliance/overview | Returns overall compliance KPIs within 500ms | Overall compliance data request | Test basic endpoint performance |
2 | GET /api/compliance/violations/active | Returns active violations list within 300ms | Active violations query | Test critical data retrieval |
3 | GET /api/compliance/standards with filters | Filtered parameter data returns within 400ms | Filter by facility and date range | Test filtered query performance |
4 | POST /api/compliance/violations (create) | Creates violation record within 200ms | New violation data payload | Test write operation performance |
5 | GET /api/compliance/realtime-alerts | Returns latest alerts within 100ms | Real-time alert subscription | Test real-time data performance |
6 | Test concurrent API requests | 100 simultaneous requests complete within SLA | 100 concurrent API calls | Test concurrent load handling |
7 | Validate data freshness | API returns data updated within last 15 minutes | Check data timestamps | Test real-time data accuracy |
8 | Test large dataset pagination | Paginated results return efficiently | Request 10,000+ records with pagination | Test large data handling |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: API consistently returns compliance data within performance SLAs
- Secondary_Verifications: Concurrent requests handled properly, data freshness maintained, pagination works efficiently
- Negative_Verification: No timeouts under normal load, no data staleness issues, no performance degradation
TEST CASE 23: Violation Management API Workflow Integration
Test Case Metadata
- Test Case ID: AX01US05_TC_023
- Title: Validate violation management API integration with external workflow systems
- Created By: Prachi
- Created Date: December 9, 2024
- Version: 1.0
Classification
- Module/Feature: Compliance Management (AX01US05)
- Test Type: API/Integration
- Test Level: Integration
- Priority: P1-Critical
- Execution Phase: Integration
- Automation Status: Automated
Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support
Business Context
- Customer_Segment: All
- Revenue_Impact: High
- Business_Priority: Must-Have
- Customer_Journey: Support
- Compliance_Required: Yes
- SLA_Related: Yes
Quality Metrics
- Risk_Level: High
- Complexity_Level: High
- Expected_Execution_Time: 10 minutes
- Reproducibility_Score: High
- Data_Sensitivity: High
- Failure_Impact: Critical
Coverage Tracking
- Feature_Coverage: 40% (API workflow integration)
- Integration_Points: Work-Order-API, Notification-API, External-Systems
- Code_Module_Mapped: AX-API-Workflows
- Requirement_Coverage: Complete
- Cross_Platform_Support: API
Stakeholder Reporting
- Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
- Report_Categories: API-Integration, Workflow-Automation
- Trend_Tracking: Yes
- Executive_Visibility: No
- Customer_Impact_Level: High
Requirements Traceability
Test Environment
- Environment: Integration-Testing
- Browser/Version: N/A (API testing)
- Device/OS: Server environment
- Screen_Resolution: N/A
- Dependencies: CMMS API, Notification service API, External workflow systems
- Performance_Baseline: < 1 second workflow trigger
- Data_Requirements: Sample violation data for workflow testing
Prerequisites
- Setup_Requirements: External system APIs configured and accessible
- User_Roles_Permissions: API service account with workflow integration permissions
- Test_Data: Sample compliance violation requiring multi-system workflow
- Prior_Test_Cases: Individual API endpoints functional
Test Procedure
Step # | Action | Expected Result | Test Data | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | POST /api/compliance/violations | Creates violation and triggers workflow APIs | Major coliform violation payload | Test violation creation with workflow |
2 | Verify work order API call | Automatic POST to CMMS /api/workorders with violation context | Work order creation via API | Test CMMS integration |
3 | Check notification API integration | POST to /api/notifications triggers public health alerts | Notification payload with violation details | Test notification system integration |
4 | Validate regulatory reporting API | PUT to /api/regulatory-reports updates compliance status | Regulatory update payload | Test regulatory system integration |
5 | Test workflow status updates | GET /api/compliance/violations/{id}/status returns current workflow state | Violation workflow status query | Test status tracking across systems |
6 | Verify error handling and rollback | Failed external API calls trigger compensation transactions | Simulate external API failure | Test transaction integrity |
7 | Check webhook integration | External system updates trigger webhooks to compliance API | Webhook payload from external completion | Test bidirectional integration |
8 | Validate end-to-end workflow completion | Complete workflow updates all systems and closes violation | Full workflow completion verification | Test complete integration cycle |
Verification Points
- Primary_Verification: Violation management API successfully orchestrates multi-system workflows
- Secondary_Verifications: All external API calls succeed, error handling works, status tracking accurate
- Negative_Verification: No partial workflows leave systems in inconsistent states, no failed integrations
EXECUTION MATRIX AND TEST SUITE DEFINITIONS
Browser/Device/Environment Combinations
Desktop Browser Testing
- Chrome 115+: Primary browser for all P1-Critical and P2-High test cases
- Firefox 118+: Secondary browser for key functional tests (TC_001, TC_003, TC_008)
- Safari 16+: Mac compatibility testing for executive dashboard viewing
- Edge Latest: Enterprise environment compatibility
Mobile Device Testing
- iOS Safari 16+: Mobile compliance inspection workflows (TC_011)
- Android Chrome 115+: Field data entry and mobile dashboard access
- Tablet (1024x768): Mobile-responsive dashboard testing
Operating System Coverage
- Windows 10/11: Primary development and user environment
- macOS 12+: Executive and management user environment
- iOS 16+: Mobile field inspection requirements
- Android 13+: Field operations mobile access
Test Suite Compositions
Smoke Test Suite (Every Build)
Criteria: P1-Critical priority, basic functionality validation
- TC_001: Compliance Dashboard Access and Overview Display
- TC_002: Primary Standards Compliance Monitoring
- TC_003: Active Violations Response Management
- TC_021: Compliance Data API Authentication
Execution Time: ~15 minutes Automation Status: 100% automated
Regression Test Suite (Pre-Release)
Criteria: P1-Critical and P2-High priority, core feature validation
- TC_001 through TC_012 (Core functionality)
- TC_019: System Failure Recovery
- TC_021 through TC_023 (Critical APIs)
Execution Time: ~90 minutes
Automation Status: 85% automated, 15% manual
Full Test Suite (Weekly/Major Releases)
Criteria: All test cases including edge cases and boundary testing
- All TC_001 through TC_023 (Complete feature coverage)
- Cross-browser compatibility testing
- Performance and security validation
- Integration testing with all external systems
Execution Time: ~4 hours Automation Status: 70% automated, 30% manual
Dependency Map and Execution Order
Sequential Dependencies
- Authentication & Access: TC_001 → All other test cases
- Core Dashboard: TC_001 → TC_002, TC_003, TC_004, TC_005
- API Foundation: TC_021 → TC_022, TC_023
- Integration Chain: TC_014 → TC_008 → TC_018
Parallel Execution Groups
- Group A: TC_006, TC_007, TC_009 (Independent filter and alert testing)
- Group B: TC_010, TC_015, TC_016 (Cross-module integration)
- Group C: TC_012, TC_013, TC_020 (Performance and boundary testing)
Blocking Relationships
- TC_019 (System Recovery): Blocks all dependent tests if primary systems fail
- TC_013 (Security): Must pass before production deployment
- TC_021 (API Auth): Blocks all API testing if authentication fails
Critical Success Criteria Summary
Must-Pass Requirements (Release Blockers)
- All P1-Critical test cases must pass (100% pass rate)
- API security tests must demonstrate no vulnerabilities
- System recovery must complete within 60 seconds
- Compliance data accuracy must be 100% validated
- Audit trail integrity must be tamper-proof
Performance Benchmarks
- Dashboard load time: < 3 seconds (95th percentile)
- API response time: < 500ms (average)
- Concurrent user support: 100+ simultaneous users
- System availability: 99.9% uptime SLA
Integration Requirements
- LIMS data synchronization: < 4 hours
- Cross-department workflow coordination: < 3 seconds initiation
- Real-time alert delivery: < 2 minutes
- Mobile access functionality: 100% feature parity
This comprehensive test case suite provides complete coverage of the Compliance Management module with detailed traceability to support all 17 BrowserStack test management reports while ensuring regulatory compliance and operational excellence for utility customers.
No Comments