Skip to main content

Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)

Asset Module Data Migration - Comprehensive Test Cases

Test Scenario Analysis

A. Functional Test Scenarios

  • Core Functionality: Asset data upload, validation, mapping, and migration
  • Business Rules: Primary key management, data validation, cross-reference integrity
  • User Journeys: End-to-end data migration workflow with error handling
  • Integration Points: Asset-Facility-System/Network relationships
  • Data Flow: CSV upload → AI mapping → validation → migration → reporting

B. Non-Functional Test Scenarios

  • Performance: 50,000 record processing, response times <3s
  • Security: Role-based access, data encryption, audit trails
  • Compatibility: Cross-browser support, file format validation
  • Usability: Error messaging, progress tracking, bulk operations
  • Reliability: Data integrity, rollback capability, system recovery

C. Edge Case & Error Scenarios

  • Boundary Conditions: File size limits, data field limits, date ranges
  • Invalid Inputs: Malformed CSV, missing required fields, duplicate IDs
  • System Failures: Network interruptions, large file timeouts
  • Data Inconsistencies: Reference mismatches, circular dependencies




Test Case 1: Asset Data Upload with Valid CSV File

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_001
  • Title: Successful asset data upload with valid CSV file containing all required fields
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Smoke
  • Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Happy-Path, Asset-Management, Upload-Process, Data-Validation, MOD-Asset, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Low, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-End-to-End, CSV-Processing, Happy-Path

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Must-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Onboarding
  • Compliance_Required: Yes
  • SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 85%
  • Integration_Points: CxServices, API, Database, File-Upload
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Feature-Adoption
  • 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 Module Service, File Upload Service, Database
  • Performance_Baseline: <3 seconds upload processing
  • Data_Requirements: Valid asset CSV with 100 records

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Asset Module enabled, templates downloaded
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role with upload permissions
  • Test_Data: Valid asset_upload_template.xlsx with sample data
  • Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication successful
  • Test Data

  • Asset Name/Description,Facility,Systems/Network,Asset Class,Asset Type,Location,Installation Year,Serial Number,Useful Life,Manufacturer,Status,Installation Cost ($),Replacement Cost ($),Depreciation Method,Current Value ($)
  • Main Water Pump,FAC001,SYS001,Pumps,Centrifugal Pump,Pump House A,2020,WP-2020-001,25,AquaTech,Active,15000.00,18000.00,Straight Line,12000.00
  • Backup Generator,FAC001,,Electrical,Emergency Generator,Electrical Room,2019,GEN-2019-002,20,PowerMax,Active,25000.00,30000.00,Straight Line,21250.00
  • Control Valve,FAC002,SYS002,Valves,Gate Valve,Control Room,2021,CV-2021-003,15,FlowControl Inc,Active,3500.00,4200.00,Straight Line,3150.00

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Data Migration section

Data Migration page loads successfully

N/A

Verify page elements

2

Select "Assets" from data type dropdown

Asset upload interface displays

Data Type: "Assets"

Interface specific to assets

3

Download asset upload template

CSV template downloads with correct headers

Template: asset_upload_template.xlsx

Verify all 15 columns present

4

Prepare valid CSV file with 100 asset records

CSV file created with realistic data

See test data section

Include all required fields

5

Upload CSV file via drag-and-drop

File upload progress indicator shows

File: valid_assets_100.csv (2.5MB)

Progress bar displays

6

Verify file analysis completion

AI analyzes file and shows column mapping

N/A

Processing complete message

7

Review AI column mapping suggestions

High confidence mappings for standard fields

Confidence: 90%+ for required fields

Green checkmarks for mapped fields

8

Proceed to validation phase

Validation runs and shows results

N/A

No critical errors found

9

Execute migration

Migration completes successfully

Success Rate: 100%

All 100 records processed

10

Verify migration report

Report shows successful completion

Migrated: 100/100, Errors: 0

Download report available


Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: All 100 records successfully migrated with correct data mapping
  • Secondary_Verifications: Migration report accuracy, database record creation, audit log entries
  • Negative_Verification: No duplicate records created, no data corruption




Test Case 2: Asset Upload with Missing Required Fields

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_002
  • Title: Asset upload validation with missing required fields (Asset Name, Facility, Asset Class)
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Negative, Asset-Management, Validation-Rules, Error-Handling, MOD-Asset, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Data-Validation

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: All
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • Business_Priority: Must-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Onboarding
  • Compliance_Required: Yes
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 75%
  • Integration_Points: Data-Validation, Error-Handling
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: QA
  • Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Error-Handling-Coverage
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Asset Module Service, Validation Engine
  • Performance_Baseline: <2 seconds validation processing
  • Data_Requirements: Invalid asset CSV with missing required fields

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Asset Module enabled
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role
  • Test_Data: CSV file with missing required fields
  • Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication successful
  • Test Data - Invalid CSV Sample

  • Asset Name/Description,Facility,Asset Class,Asset Type,Status
  • ,FAC001,Pumps,Centrifugal Pump,Active
  • Backup Generator,,Electrical,Emergency Generator,Active
  • Control Valve,FAC002,,Gate Valve,Active

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Asset upload section

Upload interface loads

N/A

Standard navigation

2

Upload CSV with missing Asset Name in 5 rows

File uploads successfully

File: invalid_assets_missing_name.csv

System accepts file upload

3

Proceed through column mapping

Mapping completes normally

N/A

Missing data not detected yet

4

Initiate validation process

Validation identifies missing required fields

N/A

Validation engine processes

5

Review validation results

Error report shows 5 records with missing Asset Name

Errors: 5/50 records

Clear error descriptions

6

Download error report

CSV error report available

Error format per business rules

Specific row numbers and issues

7

Verify migration prevention

Migration button disabled due to errors

N/A

Cannot proceed with errors

8

Fix CSV and re-upload

Corrected file processes successfully

File: corrected_assets.csv

All validations pass

9

Complete migration

All records migrate successfully

Success: 50/50

No errors after correction


Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: Validation correctly identifies and reports all missing required fields
  • Secondary_Verifications: Error messages are clear and actionable, migration is prevented
  • Negative_Verification: No records with missing required fields are migrated




Test Case 3: Asset Upload with Invalid Facility References

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_003
  • Title: Asset upload with invalid Facility ID references that don't exist in system
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Integration
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Negative, Asset-Management, Reference-Validation, Cross-Reference, MOD-Asset, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-Database

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Onboarding
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: No

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 90%
  • Integration_Points: Database, Reference-Validation, Cross-Module
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Integration-Testing, Data-Integrity
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Asset Module Service, Facility Service, Database
  • Performance_Baseline: <2 seconds reference validation
  • Data_Requirements: CSV with non-existent facility references

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Known valid facilities in system (FAC001, FAC002)
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role
  • Test_Data: CSV with invalid facility references (FAC999, FAC888)
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Facility data exists in system
  • Test Data - Invalid References Sample

  • Asset Name/Description,Facility,Systems/Network,Asset Class,Asset Type,Status
  • Water Pump A,FAC999,SYS001,Pumps,Centrifugal Pump,Active
  • Generator B,FAC888,SYS002,Electrical,Emergency Generator,Active
  • Valve C,FAC777,SYS003,Valves,Gate Valve,Active

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Prepare CSV with invalid Facility IDs

CSV contains non-existent facility references

Invalid IDs: FAC999, FAC888, FAC777

10 out of 30 records have invalid refs

2

Upload CSV file

File upload completes

File: assets_invalid_facilities.csv

Standard upload process

3

Complete column mapping

Mapping identifies Facility column correctly

Facility → Facility mapping

High confidence mapping

4

Execute validation

Cross-reference validation runs

N/A

System checks facility existence

5

Review validation errors

10 records flagged with facility reference errors

Error: "Facility ID 'FAC999' not found"

Specific error per invalid reference

6

Examine error details

Error report shows exact facility IDs and row numbers

Rows: 5, 12, 18, 23, 27, 31, 35, 38, 42, 45

Clear identification of issues

7

Verify migration blocking

Migration cannot proceed with reference errors

N/A

Button disabled, clear message

8

Download detailed error report

CSV error report with correction guidance

"Upload Facilities data first or correct facility ID"

Actionable guidance provided

9

Correct facility references

Update CSV with valid facility IDs

Valid IDs: FAC001, FAC002

Use existing facilities

10

Re-upload and complete

All validations pass, migration succeeds

Success: 30/30 records

Clean migration completion


Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: All invalid facility references are detected and reported accurately
  • Secondary_Verifications: Error messages provide clear correction guidance, migration is prevented
  • Negative_Verification: No assets with invalid facility references are migrated to system




Test Case 4: Large File Upload Performance (10,000 Records)

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_004
  • Title: Performance validation of maximum file size upload (50,000 asset records)
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Performance
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Performance
  • Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Performance, Asset-Management, Large-Dataset, Scalability, MOD-Asset, P2-High, Phase-Performance, Type-Performance, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-High, Stress-Testing

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Onboarding
  • Compliance_Required: No
  • SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

  • Risk_Level: High
  • Complexity_Level: High
  • Expected_Execution_Time: 15 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: Medium
  • Data_Sensitivity: Low
  • Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 95%
  • Integration_Points: File-Upload, Database, Memory-Management
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Performance-Dashboard, Scalability-Testing
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: Yes
  • Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Asset Module Service, File Upload Service, Database with performance monitoring
  • Performance_Baseline: Upload <30 seconds, Processing <5 minutes, Total <10 minutes
  • Data_Requirements: CSV file with exactly 50,000 valid asset records

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Performance monitoring enabled, sufficient server resources
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role with bulk upload permissions
  • Test_Data: Generated CSV with 50,000 realistic asset records (~15MB file)
  • Prior_Test_Cases: System performance baseline established

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Generate 10,000 record CSV file

File created successfully

File size: ~15MB, Records: 50,000

Use data generation script

2

Navigate to asset upload

Page loads within 3 seconds

N/A

Baseline performance check

3

Initiate file upload

Upload progress begins immediately

File: assets_50k_records.csv

Monitor upload progress

4

Monitor upload completion

Upload completes within 30 seconds

Expected: <30 seconds

Record actual upload time

5

Verify file analysis start

AI analysis begins automatically

N/A

No delay between upload/analysis

6

Monitor analysis progress

Column mapping completes within 2 minutes

Expected: <2 minutes

Real-time progress tracking

7

Review mapping results

High confidence mappings displayed

Confidence: >85% for all fields

Performance doesn't impact accuracy

8

Initiate validation

Validation begins within 5 seconds

N/A

Immediate response to user action

9

Monitor validation progress

Validation completes within 3 minutes

Expected: <3 minutes

Progress indicator updates

10

Execute migration

Migration completes within 5 minutes

Expected: <5 minutes total

Monitor system resources

11

Verify completion

Success report generated within 30 seconds

Success: 50,000/50,000

Report generation performance

12

Monitor system stability

System remains responsive throughout

Response time: <3 seconds

No performance degradation


Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: All 50,000 records processed within performance benchmarks
  • Secondary_Verifications: System stability maintained, memory usage within limits, UI responsiveness
  • File Upload: <30 seconds for 15MB file
  • AI Analysis: <2 minutes for 50,000 records
  • Data Validation: <3 minutes for full dataset
  • Migration Execution: <5 minutes total processing
  • Memory Usage: <2GB peak usage
  • CPU Usage: <80% peak during processing
  • Database Performance: <500ms average query time
  • Negative_Verification: No timeouts, no memory leaks, no system crashes during processing




Test Case 5: AI Column Mapping Accuracy

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_005
  • Title: Validate AI-powered column mapping accuracy with various column name formats
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Happy-Path, AI-Mapping, Column-Recognition, Data-Mapping, MOD-Asset, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, AI-Feature

Business Context

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

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 80%
  • Integration_Points: AI-Engine, Column-Mapping, Data-Analysis
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: AI-Performance, Feature-Accuracy
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
  • Dependencies: Asset Module Service, AI Mapping Engine
  • Performance_Baseline: Mapping analysis <10 seconds
  • Data_Requirements: CSV files with various column naming conventions

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: AI mapping engine enabled and trained
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role
  • Test_Data: Multiple CSV files with different column naming patterns
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Basic upload functionality verified
  • Test Data - Column Name Variations

  • Exact Match CSV:
  • Asset Name/Description,Facility,Systems/Network,Asset Class,Asset Type,Status
  • Underscore Variations CSV:
  • Asset_Name,Facility_ID,System_Network,Asset_Class,Asset_Type,Current_Status
  • Abbreviated Names CSV:
  • Name,Fac,Sys,Class,Type,Stat,Install_Cost,Replace_Cost
  • Custom Names CSV:
  • Equipment_Description,Location_Code,Network_Code,Category,Subcategory,Operational_Status

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Upload CSV with exact template column names

AI maps all columns with High confidence

File: exact_match_columns.csv

Perfect match scenario

2

Verify confidence levels

All mappings show ✅ High confidence (>90%)

Expected: 100% high confidence

Baseline accuracy test

3

Upload CSV with underscore variations

AI maps columns with High/Medium confidence

File: underscore_columns.csv

"Asset_Name" → "Asset Name"

4

Review mapping accuracy

80%+ fields mapped correctly

Expected: Asset_ID → Asset Name/Description

Naming variation handling

5

Upload CSV with abbreviated names

AI suggests mappings with Medium confidence

File: abbreviated_columns.csv

"Desc" → "Asset Name/Description"

6

Validate medium confidence mappings

Warning icons (⚠) shown appropriately

Expected: 60-80% confidence range

User review required

7

Upload CSV with completely different names

AI shows Low confidence or unmapped

File: custom_columns.csv

"Equipment" → ? mapping

8

Test manual override capability

User can manually select correct mappings

N/A

Dropdown override functionality

9

Verify mixed confidence file

High/Medium/Low confidence displayed correctly

File: mixed_naming.csv

Combined scenario testing

10

Complete mapping with overrides

All required fields mapped successfully

N/A

Proceed to validation phase

Expected Mapping Results

Original Column

Template Column

Expected Confidence

Reasoning

Asset_Name

Asset Name/Description

High (✅)

Strong similarity, exact match

Facility_ID

Facility

High (✅)

Common ID pattern recognition

Equipment_Description

Asset Name/Description

Medium (⚠)

Contextual understanding

Name

Asset Name/Description

Medium (⚠)

Generic but probable match

Location_Code

Facility

Low (❌)

Ambiguous reference

Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: AI mapping accuracy meets confidence level thresholds (High >90%, Medium 60-90%, Low <60%)
  • Secondary_Verifications: Manual override functionality works correctly, confidence indicators are accurate
  • Negative_Verification: No incorrect high-confidence mappings, no system crashes with unusual column names




Test Suite Organization Summary

Smoke Test Suite (P1 Priority - Critical Path)

  1. AX06US01_TC_001: Valid asset upload (Happy path)
  2. AX06US01_TC_002: Missing required fields validation
  3. Basic authentication and navigation tests

Regression Test Suite (P1-P2 Priority - Core Features)

  1. AX06US01_TC_001: Valid asset upload
  2. AX06US01_TC_002: Missing required fields
  3. AX06US01_TC_003: Invalid facility references
  4. AX06US01_TC_005: AI column mapping accuracy
  5. Cross-browser compatibility tests
  6. Role-based access control tests

Performance Test Suite (Performance Validation)

  1. AX06US01_TC_004: Large file upload (50,000 records)
  2. Concurrent user upload scenarios
  3. Memory and CPU usage monitoring
  4. Database performance under load

Full Test Suite (Complete Coverage)

  • All above test cases
  • Edge cases and boundary testing
  • Security penetration testing
  • Accessibility compliance testing
  • Mobile responsiveness validation
  • API integration testing




Test Case 6: System Data Mapping - Conditional Screen

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_006
  • Title: Validate System Data Mapping screen for unmapped critical system fields
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: Integration
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Happy-Path, System-Mapping, Bulk-Operations, UI-Enhancement, MOD-Asset, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Workflow-Enhancement

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • Revenue_Impact: Medium
  • Business_Priority: Should-Have
  • Customer_Journey: Onboarding
  • 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: 85%
  • Integration_Points: UI-Components, Bulk-Operations, Data-Assignment
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Product
  • Report_Categories: UX-Enhancement, Workflow-Optimization
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080, Tablet-1024x768
  • Dependencies: Asset Module Service, System Types Service, UI Components
  • Performance_Baseline: Screen load <2 seconds, bulk operations <5 seconds
  • Data_Requirements: CSV with unmapped Asset Class, Asset Type, System/Network fields

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: System Types and Asset Classifications data loaded
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role with bulk assignment permissions
  • Test_Data: CSV file with 200 assets missing system field mappings
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Column mapping completed with unmapped system fields
  • Test Data - Unmapped System Fields CSV Sample

  • Asset Name/Description,Facility,Installation Year,Status,Installation Cost ($),Asset Class,Asset Type,Systems/Network
  • Main Pump A,FAC001,2020,Active,15000.00,,Centrifugal Pump,
  • Backup Generator,FAC001,2019,Active,25000.00,Electrical,,SYS001
  • Control Valve,FAC002,2021,Active,3500.00,,Gate Valve,
  • Emergency Pump,FAC001,2022,Active,18000.00,Pumps,,
  • Flow Meter,FAC002,2020,Active,8000.00,,Flow Meter,SYS002

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Complete initial file upload and column mapping

Standard mapping screen completed

File: assets_missing_system_fields.csv

50% of records missing Asset Class

2

Proceed from column mapping

System Data Mapping screen appears automatically

N/A

Conditional screen trigger

3

Verify tab-based UI layout

Tabs shown for each unmapped field: "Asset Class", "Asset Type"

Tabs: 2 active tabs

Only unmapped fields shown as tabs

4

Click on "Asset Class" tab

Shows records missing Asset Class field

Records: 100 out of 200 total

Only relevant records displayed

5

Test search functionality

Search filters records across all columns

Search: "Pump"

Real-time filtering works

6

Apply multiselect filter

Filter by Facility or Manufacturer

Filter: Facility = "FAC001"

Reduces record set appropriately

7

Select individual records

Checkboxes allow individual selection

Select: 5 specific records

Visual selection indicators

8

Use "Select All" functionality

All filtered records selected

Action: Select All button

Bulk selection capability

9

Assign Asset Class to selected records

Bulk assignment dropdown appears

Assignment: "Pumps" to selected records

Visual tagging of assignments

10

Verify progress tracker

Progress shows % completion of mappings

Progress: 25% → 50% after assignment

Real-time progress update

11

Switch to "Asset Type" tab

Shows remaining unmapped Asset Type records

Records: 75 remaining

Tab switching maintains state

12

Complete all system field mappings

Progress reaches 100%, proceed button enabled

Progress: 100% complete

All required mappings done

13

Proceed to validation phase

System validation screen loads

N/A

Workflow continues normally


System Data Assignment Options

  • Asset Classes: Pumps, Electrical, Valves, Instrumentation, Mechanical
  • Asset Types: Centrifugal Pump, Gate Valve, Emergency Generator, Flow Meter, Control Panel
  • Systems/Networks: SYS001, SYS002, SYS003, NET001, NET002

Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: All unmapped system fields can be assigned through bulk operations
  • UI Verification Points
  • Tab Navigation: Smooth switching between unmapped field tabs
  • Search Performance: Real-time search results with <500ms response
  • Filter Combinations: Multiple filters work together correctly
  • Visual Indicators: Clear selection states and assignment tagging
  • Progress Tracking: Accurate percentage calculations and updates
  • Responsive Design: Functional on desktop and tablet screen sizes
  • Secondary_Verifications: UI responsiveness, progress tracking accuracy, assignment persistence
  • Negative_Verification: Cannot proceed until all required mappings completed, no UI freezing during bulk operations




Test Case 7: Data Update vs New Upload Selection

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_007
  • Title: Validate selection between "Upload New Data" and "Update Existing Data" options
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Functional
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Smoke
  • Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Happy-Path, Update-Process, Data-Enhancement, Template-Control, MOD-Asset, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Workflow-Enhancement

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: Medium
  • Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: High
  • Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 90%
  • Integration_Points: Template-Generation, Field-Selection, Upload-Control
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Feature-Usage, Update-Operations
  • 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 Module Service, Template Generation Service
  • Performance_Baseline: Template generation <3 seconds
  • Data_Requirements: Existing assets in system for update testing

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Existing asset records in system (minimum 50 records)
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role with update permissions
  • Test_Data: N/A for initial selection test
  • Prior_Test_Cases: System contains valid asset data

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Asset data migration

Migration page loads with data type selection

N/A

Standard navigation

2

Select "Assets" from data type dropdown

Asset-specific options appear

Data Type: "Assets"

Interface customization

3

Verify upload method options

Two options displayed: "Upload New Data" and "Update Existing Data"

N/A

Enhanced upload options

4

Select "Upload New Data" option

Traditional upload interface appears

Option: "Upload New Data"

Standard full migration flow

5

Verify template download availability

Full template with all fields downloadable

Template: Complete asset template

All 15 columns included

6

Return and select "Update Existing Data"

Update-specific interface appears

Option: "Update Existing Data"

Different workflow initiated

7

Verify unique identifier requirement message

Clear message about Asset ID requirement

Message: "Updates require valid Asset ID"

User guidance provided

8

Access field selection interface

Updatable fields list appears

Available fields: 12 out of 15 total

Non-updatable fields excluded

9

Select specific fields for update

Checkboxes allow field selection

Selected: Installation Cost, Replacement Cost, Status

Targeted update capability

10

Download customized template

Template contains only selected fields + Asset ID

Template columns: Asset ID, Installation Cost, Replacement Cost, Status

Focused template generation

11

Verify upload control

Upload disabled until template downloaded

Upload button: Disabled state

Template enforcement

12

Attempt upload with non-template file

System rejects non-template file

Error: "Please use downloaded template"

Template validation

13

Upload template-based file

Upload proceeds successfully

File: Based on downloaded template

Template compliance verified

Field Selection Options (Update Mode)

Updatable Fields (12 fields):

  • Asset Name/Description ✓
  • Location ✓
  • Installation Year ✓
  • Serial Number ✓
  • Useful Life ✓
  • Manufacturer ✓
  • Status ✓
  • Installation Cost ✓
  • Replacement Cost ✓
  • Depreciation Method ✓
  • Current Value ✓
  • Systems/Network ✓

Non-Updatable Fields (3 fields):

  • Facility (Structural relationship)
  • Asset Class (Classification lock)
  • Asset Type (Classification lock)

Template Control Validation

  • Template Download Mandatory: Upload disabled until template downloaded
  • Template Format Check: File format validation against downloaded template
  • Column Validation: Exact column match requirement
  • Asset ID Validation: Presence and format checking

Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: Clear distinction between new upload and update workflows
  • Secondary_Verifications: Template generation accuracy, upload control enforcement, field selection persistence
  • Negative_Verification: Cannot upload without proper template, cannot update non-updatable fields




Test Case 8: Partial Field Update Execution

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_008
  • Title: Execute partial field updates on existing asset records using template-based approach
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Integration
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P1-Critical
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Happy-Path, Update-Execution, Data-Modification, Record-Management, MOD-Asset, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Database-Operations

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • 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: 95%
  • Integration_Points: Database-Updates, Audit-Logging, Data-Validation
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Data-Operations, Update-Success-Rate
  • 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 Module Service, Database, Audit Service
  • Performance_Baseline: Update processing <2 minutes for 100 records
  • Data_Requirements: 100 existing assets with known Asset IDs

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Existing asset records with Asset IDs: ASSET001-ASSET100
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role with update permissions
  • Test_Data: Update template with cost and status changes
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Update workflow selected and template downloaded
  • Test Data - Update Template Sample

  • Asset ID,Installation Cost ($),Replacement Cost ($),Status
  • ASSET001,16500.00,19800.00,Active
  • ASSET002,27500.00,33000.00,Under Maintenance
  • ASSET003,3850.00,4620.00,Active
  • ASSET004,19800.00,23760.00,Active
  • ASSET005,8800.00,10560.00,Inactive

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Prepare update template with cost changes

CSV file with Asset ID and selected update fields

File: asset_cost_updates.csv (100 records)

50% cost increases, status changes

2

Upload update file using template

Upload completes successfully

Upload progress: 100%

Template validation passes

3

Verify update-specific validation

Only selected fields validated

Validation: Asset ID, Installation Cost, Status

Other fields ignored

4

Review update preview

Shows old vs new values for changes

Preview: 100 records, 200 field changes

Clear before/after comparison

5

Validate Asset ID references

All Asset IDs exist in system

Validation: 100/100 Asset IDs found

No missing reference errors

6

Verify field-level validation

Cost values and status values validated

Validation: All values within valid ranges

Business rule compliance

7

Execute update operation

Update processing begins

Action: Execute Updates

Batch processing initiated

8

Monitor update progress

Real-time progress indicator

Progress: 0% → 100% over 90 seconds

Smooth progress updates

9

Verify update completion

Success report shows completed updates

Success: 100/100 records updated

No failures or errors

10

Validate database changes

Updated values reflected in system

Database query verification

Actual data changes confirmed

11

Check audit log entries

Update actions logged with timestamps

Audit: 100 update entries

Complete audit trail

12

Verify unchanged fields

Non-selected fields remain unchanged

Verification: Facility, Asset Class unchanged

Selective update precision


Update Scenarios Tested

  1. Cost Updates: Installation and replacement cost increases (10-15%)
  2. Status Changes: Active → Under Maintenance, Active → Inactive
  3. Mixed Updates: Some records with cost changes, others with status changes
  4. Partial Records: Not all existing assets included in update file

Database Verification Queries

-- Verify cost updates

SELECT Asset_ID, Installation_Cost, Replacement_Cost, Status 

FROM Assets 

WHERE Asset_ID IN ('ASSET001', 'ASSET002', 'ASSET003');


-- Check audit trail

SELECT Asset_ID, Field_Name, Old_Value, New_Value, Updated_By, Updated_Date 

FROM Asset_Audit_Log 

WHERE Updated_Date >= CURRENT_DATE;


-- Verify unchanged fields

SELECT Asset_ID, Facility, Asset_Class, Asset_Type 

FROM Assets 

WHERE Asset_ID IN ('ASSET001', 'ASSET002');


Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: All 100 records updated successfully with correct values in selected fields
  • Secondary_Verifications: Audit logging accuracy, unchanged field preservation, performance within benchmarks
  • Negative_Verification: No updates to non-selected fields, no corruption of existing data




Test Case 9: Migration History and Rollback

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_009
  • Title: Validate migration history logging and rollback capability within 3-day window
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Integration
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P2-High
  • Execution Phase: Regression
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Rollback-Testing, History-Management, Admin-Features, Data-Recovery, MOD-Asset, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-High, Audit-Trail

Business Context

  • Customer_Segment: Enterprise
  • Revenue_Impact: High
  • Business_Priority: Should-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: 90%
  • Integration_Points: History-Service, Rollback-Engine, Audit-System
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Complete
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
  • Report_Categories: Data-Recovery, Admin-Operations
  • 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 Module Service, History Service, Rollback Engine
  • Performance_Baseline: Rollback completion <5 minutes for 100 records
  • Data_Requirements: Recent migration history with both new uploads and updates

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Admin role access, recent migration operations in history
  • User_Roles_Permissions: System Administrator role with rollback permissions
  • Test_Data: Previous successful new upload and update operations
  • Prior_Test_Cases: AX06US01_TC_001 and AX06US01_TC_008 completed successfully

Test Procedure

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Test Data

Comments

1

Navigate to Migration History

History dashboard loads with recent operations

N/A

Admin-level navigation

2

Verify history entry details

Each entry shows metadata: timestamp, record count, user, method

History entries: 2 recent operations

Complete operation logging

3

Review new upload history entry

Shows "Upload" method with complete metadata

Entry: 100 new records, User: TestUser, Date: Today

New record creation logged

4

Review update history entry

Shows "Update" method with modified fields info

Entry: 50 updated records, Fields: Cost, Status

Selective update logging

5

Verify 3-day rollback window

Only operations within 3 days show rollback option

Rollback available: Operations from last 3 days

Time-based rollback eligibility

6

Initiate rollback of update operation

Rollback confirmation dialog appears

Action: Rollback update operation

User confirmation required

7

Confirm rollback execution

Rollback processing begins with progress indicator

Confirmation: "Restore 50 records to previous values"

Clear rollback scope

8

Monitor rollback progress

Real-time progress updates

Progress: 0% → 100% over 3 minutes

Rollback processing status

9

Verify rollback completion

Success message with rollback summary

Success: "50 records restored to previous values"

Operation completion confirmed

10

Validate data restoration

Database shows pre-update values

Database verification: Original costs and status restored

Data integrity maintained

11

Initiate rollback of new upload

Rollback confirmation for record deletion

Action: Rollback new upload operation

Deletion confirmation required

12

Complete new upload rollback

All newly uploaded records removed

Success: "100 new records deleted"

Complete operation reversal

13

Verify rollback history logging

Rollback operations logged in history

New entries: 2 rollback operations logged

Rollback audit trail

History Entry Metadata Format

{

  "operation_id": "OP_20250109_001",

  "timestamp": "2025-01-09T10:30:00Z",

  "user": "testuser@company.com",

  "operation_type": "UPDATE",

  "record_count": 50,

  "affected_fields": ["Installation_Cost", "Replacement_Cost", "Status"],

  "file_name": "asset_cost_updates.csv",

  "success_rate": "100%",

  "rollback_eligible": true,

  "rollback_deadline": "2025-01-12T10:30:00Z"

}


Rollback Operation Types

  1. Update Rollback:

    • Restores old field values for updated records
    • Maintains record existence
    • Logs field-level changes reversed
  2. New Upload Rollback:

    • Deletes all newly created records
    • Removes associated transaction logs
    • Cleans up all related data

Rollback Validation Points

  • Data Accuracy: All restored values match pre-operation state
  • Referential Integrity: No broken relationships after rollback
  • Audit Trail: Complete logging of rollback operations
  • Performance: Rollback completion within acceptable timeframes
  • User Feedback: Clear progress indication and completion messages

Time Window Testing

  • Valid Rollback: Operations from 1-3 days ago
  • Expired Rollback: Operations older than 3 days (rollback option not available)
  • Timezone Handling: Correct calculation across different timezones

Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: Rollback successfully restores data to pre-operation state
  • Secondary_Verifications: History logging accuracy, rollback eligibility calculation, user permission validation
  • Negative_Verification: Cannot rollback operations older than 3 days, no data corruption during rollback




Test Case 10: Cross-Browser Compatibility

Test Case Metadata

  • Test Case ID: AX06US01_TC_010
  • Title: Validate asset migration functionality across supported browsers and devices
  • Created By: Prachi
  • Created Date: 2025-01-09
  • Version: 1.0

Classification

  • Module/Feature: Data Migration Enhancement for Asset (AX06US01)
  • Test Type: Compatibility
  • Test Level: System
  • Priority: P3-Medium
  • Execution Phase: Acceptance
  • Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags

  • Tags: Cross-Browser, Compatibility-Testing, Multi-Platform, UI-Consistency, MOD-Asset, P3-Medium, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Compatibility, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Customer-All, Risk-Low, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Low, Browser-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: 20 minutes
  • Reproducibility_Score: High
  • Data_Sensitivity: Low
  • Failure_Impact: Low

Coverage Tracking

  • Feature_Coverage: 70%
  • Integration_Points: UI-Components, File-Upload, Browser-APIs
  • Code_Module_Mapped: AX
  • Requirement_Coverage: Partial
  • Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

  • Primary_Stakeholder: QA
  • Report_Categories: Compatibility-Matrix, Browser-Support
  • Trend_Tracking: Yes
  • Executive_Visibility: No
  • Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Test Environment

  • Environment: Staging
  • Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+, Edge 115+
  • Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+, iOS 16+, Android 13+
  • Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080, Tablet-1024x768, Mobile-375x667
  • Dependencies: Cross-browser file upload support
  • Performance_Baseline: Consistent across all browsers
  • Data_Requirements: Standard asset upload CSV file

Prerequisites

  • Setup_Requirements: Multiple browser/device combinations available
  • User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager role
  • Test_Data: Standard 50-record asset CSV file
  • Prior_Test_Cases: Core functionality verified in primary browser

Test Procedure - Cross-Browser Matrix

Browser/Device

File Upload

Column Mapping

Validation

Migration

UI Consistency

Performance

Chrome 115+ Desktop

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

Firefox 110+ Desktop

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

Safari 16+ Desktop

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

Edge 115+ Desktop

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

Chrome Mobile

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

Safari iOS

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

✓ Test

Detailed Test Steps (Per Browser)

Step #

Action

Expected Result

Chrome

Firefox

Safari

Edge

1

Navigate to asset migration

Page loads correctly

2

Upload CSV file via drag-drop

File upload works

3

Verify AI column mapping

Mapping interface functions

4

Execute validation

Validation completes

5

Complete migration

Migration succeeds

6

Download reports

File download works

Mobile/Tablet Specific Tests

  • Touch Interface: Drag-and-drop with touch gestures
  • File Selection: Mobile file picker functionality
  • Responsive Layout: UI adaptation to smaller screens
  • Performance: Acceptable performance on mobile devices

Browser-Specific Features

  • File API Support: Modern file handling APIs
  • CSS Grid/Flexbox: Layout consistency
  • JavaScript ES6+: Modern JavaScript feature support
  • WebSocket Support: Real-time progress updates

Known Browser Limitations

  • Safari iOS: File upload size limitations
  • Firefox: Different file type MIME handling
  • Edge: Compatibility mode considerations
  • Mobile Chrome: Memory constraints for large files

Verification Points

  • Primary_Verification: Core migration functionality works identically across all supported browsers
  • Secondary_Verifications: UI consistency, performance parity, feature availability
  • Negative_Verification: No browser-specific crashes, no data corruption, no functional degradation