Field Alerts--Incidents Management (AX05US02)

Comprehensive Test Cases for Incidents Management (AX05US02)

Test Scenario Analysis

A. Functional Test Scenarios

1. Core Functionality Scenarios

2. • Incident creation through multiple channels (web portal, call center interface)

   • Multi-step incident form workflow with validation

   • Location selection (map-based vs manual entry)

   • Asset linking and proximity detection

   • Status management and progression

   • File attachment and photo upload

2. Business Rules Scenarios

3. • Customer information validation (phone format, email validation)

   • Incident type selection and priority assignment

   • Location validation within service territory

   • Asset search and linking rules

   • Status progression enforcement

   • Role-based permissions and access control

3. User Journey Scenarios

4. • Call Center Representative: Complete incident creation workflow

   • Asset Manager: Asset correlation and analysis workflow

   • Field Technician: Mobile incident access and status updates

   • Dispatcher: Assignment and resource allocation workflow

B. Non-Functional Test Scenarios

1. Performance: Form submission time (<3 seconds), search response time (<500ms)

2. Security: Role-based access, data validation, session management

3. Compatibility: Cross-browser testing, mobile responsiveness

4. Usability: Form navigation, error handling, user guidance

Test Case 1: Create New Incident - Happy Path

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_001
• Title: Create new incident with complete customer information and location selection
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Functional
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P1-Critical
• Execution Phase: Smoke
• Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Api, Database, CrossModule, MOD-Incidents, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Low, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Point, Core-Functionality
• Report Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Feature-Coverage, Priority-Distribution

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 85% of core incident creation functionality
• Integration_Points: CxServices, API, Database, GIS-Services
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Core
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Feature-Completion, Business-Critical-Tests
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC01, AX05US02-AC02, AX05US02-AC03, AX05US02-AC04, AX05US02-AC05, AX05US02-AC06, AX05US02-AC07
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_002 (Form Validation), AX05US02_TC_006 (API Integration)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: SMART360 platform, GIS mapping service, customer database, incident API
• Performance_Baseline: Page load <3 seconds, form submission <2 seconds
• Data_Requirements: Valid customer database, active GIS service, asset catalog

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: SMART360 incident management module enabled, user authenticated
• User_Roles_Permissions: Call Center Representative role with incident creation permissions
• Test_Data:
• • Customer: Anna Rivera, Phone: (555) 123-4567, Email: a.rivera@email.com
  • Address: 412 Pine Street, Maplewood
  • Incident Type: Low Pressure, Priority: High
  • Location Coordinates: Lat 40.7128, Long -74.0060
• Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication (AX01US01_TC_001) must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Login to SMART360 with Call Center Representative credentials	Dashboard loads successfully with incident management access visible	Username: callcenter_rep1, Password: Test123!	Verify role-based menu access
2	Navigate to Field Alerts > Incidents from main navigation	Incidents list page displays with "Add New Incident" button visible and enabled	N/A	Check navigation breadcrumb shows: Dashboard > Field Alerts > Incidents
3	Click "Add New Incident" button	New incident creation form opens with all required sections: Customer Information, Incident Details, Location Details, Link Asset	N/A	Form should load within 3 seconds
4	Fill "Reported By (Full Name)" field	Field accepts input with character validation (2-50 characters)	Anna Rivera	Field should show green validation indicator
5	Fill "Customer Contact Number" field	Phone number auto-formats to (555) 123-4567 format during typing	(555) 123-4567	Real-time formatting validation
6	Fill "Customer Email (Optional)" field	Email validation occurs on blur, accepts valid format	a.rivera@email.com	Optional field with format validation
7	Select "Incident Type" from dropdown	Dropdown displays all 6+ predefined options: Low Pressure, No Water, Leakage, Smelly Water, Discolored Water, Other	Select: Low Pressure	Verify dropdown populated from configuration
8	Select "Priority" level	Priority options displayed with color coding: High (red), Medium (orange), Low (gray)	Select: High	Red indicator should appear
9	Verify "Date/Time Reported" field	Current timestamp pre-filled, calendar picker prevents future date selection	Accept default: August 17th, 2025, 2:30 PM	Future dates should be disabled
10	Enter "Customer's Description"	Text area accepts 10-500 characters with real-time character counter	"The water pressure in my house has been very low all morning. It's barely a trickle from the faucets."	Character counter shows remaining: 395 characters
11	Verify "Input Method" default selection	"Select on Map" is pre-selected, map interface loads with click instruction	N/A	Map displays service territory boundaries
12	Click on map at specified coordinates	Address auto-populates from geocoding service, coordinates fill automatically	Click at Lat: 40.7128, Long: -74.0060	Address should auto-fill: "412 Pine Street, Maplewood"
13	Add "Location Details"	Optional field accepts additional context up to character limit	"Issue affects second floor bathroom primarily"	Additional context for field technicians
14	Skip "Link Asset (Optional)" section	Checkbox remains unchecked, asset search section hidden	N/A	Optional functionality not used in this test
15	Review all form data	All sections show entered data correctly, no validation errors displayed	N/A	Pre-submission validation check
16	Click "Create Incident" button	Form submits successfully, loading indicator appears during processing	N/A	Button should disable during submission
17	Verify successful incident creation	System generates unique incident ID in INC-YYYY-NNN format, displays success message	Expected format: INC-2025-088	Success message: "Incident INC-2025-088 created successfully"
18	Verify automatic redirect	Page redirects to incident details view showing all entered information	N/A	URL should be: /incidents/INC-2025-088
19	Verify incident status	New incident shows status "New" with creation timestamp	Status: New, Created: 2025-08-17 14:30:00	Initial status assignment
20	Verify audit trail entry	Status history shows initial "Reported" entry with user attribution	Event: "Reported", User: callcenter_rep1, Time: 2025-08-17 14:30:00	Automatic audit logging

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Incident created successfully with unique ID in format INC-YYYY-NNN
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • All customer information saved correctly in database
  • Address geocoded and coordinates populated accurately
  • Initial status set to "New" with proper timestamp
  • User audit trail created with correct attribution
  • All form validations enforced properly
  • No duplicate incidents created with same data
• Negative_Verification: No data corruption, no partial incident creation, no system errors

---

Test Case 2: Form Validation - Negative Testing

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_002
• Title: Validate form submission with missing mandatory fields and invalid data
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Functional
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P1-Critical
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Negative, Consumer, Database, MOD-Incidents, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Validation-Testing, Error-Handling, Input-Validation

Business Context

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

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 90% of form validation functionality
• Integration_Points: Form-Validation-Engine, Database
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Validation
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC03, AX05US02-AC04, AX05US02-AC05
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_001 (Happy Path Creation)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: SMART360 platform, form validation service
• Performance_Baseline: Validation response <100ms
• Data_Requirements: Form validation rules configuration

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: SMART360 incident management module enabled, validation rules active
• User_Roles_Permissions: Call Center Representative role with incident creation permissions
• Test_Data:
• • Invalid phone: "123-invalid"
  • Invalid email: "invalid.email"
  • Short description: "Too short"
  • Long name: 60+ character string
• Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to new incident creation form	Form loads successfully with all validation rules active	N/A	Prerequisite step
2	Leave "Reported By (Full Name)" field empty	Field shows red asterisk (*), no green validation indicator	Empty string	Mandatory field indicator
3	Leave "Customer Contact Number" field empty	Field shows red asterisk (*), validation error on focus loss	Empty string	Required field validation
4	Leave "Incident Type" dropdown unselected	Dropdown shows red asterisk (*), no default selection	No selection	Mandatory dropdown validation
5	Leave "Priority" dropdown unselected	Dropdown shows red asterisk (*), no default selection	No selection	Required priority selection
6	Enter invalid phone number format	Real-time validation shows error message: "Please enter valid phone format (xxx) xxx-xxxx"	"123-invalid-phone"	Phone format validation
7	Enter invalid email format	Email validation triggers error on blur: "Please enter valid email address"	"invalid.email.format"	Email format validation
8	Enter description under 10 characters	Character counter shows error, validation message: "Description must be at least 10 characters"	"Too short"	Minimum length validation
9	Enter name exceeding 50 characters	Field validation prevents additional input, error message displayed	60-character string	Maximum length validation
10	Click "Create Incident" button with validation errors	Form submission blocked, error summary displayed at top, focus moves to first error field	N/A	Submit prevention with errors
11	Verify error message display	Clear, specific error messages shown for each invalid field with red highlighting	N/A	User-friendly error guidance
12	Fix "Reported By" field with valid name	Error message clears, field shows green validation indicator	"John Smith"	Real-time validation clearing
13	Fix phone number with valid format	Error clears, phone auto-formats during typing	"(555) 123-4567"	Format correction and validation
14	Select valid incident type	Error clears, dropdown shows selected value	"Low Pressure"	Dropdown validation clearing
15	Select valid priority	Error clears, priority color indicator appears	"High"	Priority validation clearing
16	Add valid description	Character counter updates, error message disappears	"This is a valid description with sufficient length to meet requirements"	Length validation clearing
17	Verify all validations cleared	No error messages visible, submit button enabled	N/A	Clean validation state
18	Submit form with all valid data	Form submits successfully, incident created	Complete valid dataset	Successful submission after validation
19	Verify no partial data saved	No incomplete incident records in database during validation failures	N/A	Data integrity verification
20	Test browser back button during validation	Form retains entered data and validation states	N/A	State preservation testing

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Form submission prevented when mandatory fields are empty or contain invalid data
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Specific error messages displayed for each validation failure
  • Real-time validation updates as fields are corrected
  • No partial incident creation during validation failures
  • User-friendly error guidance provided
  • Form state preserved during navigation
  • All validation rules enforced consistently
• Negative_Verification: No data persistence during validation errors, no system crashes from invalid input

---

Test Case 3: Asset Linking Functionality

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_003
• Title: Link assets to incident using proximity search and manual selection with distance calculation
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Integration
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Database, CrossModule, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-End-to-End, Asset-Management, GIS-Integration

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 95% of asset linking functionality
• Integration_Points: Asset-Management-API, GIS-Services, Database, Distance-Calculation-Engine
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Assets, AX-Assets-Core
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Integration-Tests, Asset-Management-Coverage, GIS-Integration-Tests
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: No
• Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC08, AX05US02-AC09
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_001 (Incident Creation), AX07US01_TC_015 (Asset Search)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Asset management system, GIS proximity calculation service, asset database, distance calculation API
• Performance_Baseline: Asset search <1 second, distance calculation <500ms
• Data_Requirements: Asset catalog with coordinates, incident location data, proximity algorithm configuration

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Asset management system connected, GIS services active, distance calculation enabled
• User_Roles_Permissions: Asset Manager or Call Center Representative with asset linking permissions
• Test_Data:
• • Incident location: 412 Pine Street, Maplewood (Lat: 40.7128, Long: -74.0060)
  • Test assets: P-789 (Water Main, 0.2 miles), P-790 (Valve, 0.3 miles), H-456 (Hydrant, 0.1 miles)
  • Search criteria: Asset types, proximity radius settings
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident creation (AX05US02_TC_001) must be successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create incident with valid location data	Incident form completed with accurate coordinates and address	Address: 412 Pine Street, Maplewood, Coordinates: 40.7128, -74.0060	Prerequisite for asset proximity
2	Check "Link Asset (Optional)" checkbox	Asset search section expands, shows search interface with instructions	N/A	UI state change, section visibility
3	Verify asset search instruction text	Display shows: "Optional: If the affected asset is already known, find and link it below"	N/A	User guidance verification
4	Click "Find Assets Near Location" button	Proximity search executes, loading indicator appears, results table populates	N/A	Search within 0.5 mile radius default
5	Verify asset search results table structure	Table displays columns: Asset ID, Asset Name, Type, Location, Distance, Action	Expected headers visible	Result table format validation
6	Verify distance calculations in results	Assets show accurate distances: P-789 (0.2 miles), H-456 (0.1 miles), P-790 (0.3 miles)	Calculated distances from incident location	Distance algorithm accuracy
7	Verify asset result sorting	Results sorted by distance (closest first): H-456, P-789, P-790	Distance-based sorting	Proximity prioritization
8	Click "Select" button for closest asset	Asset H-456 added to "Linked Asset" confirmation area below search	Select: H-456 - Hydrant - Pine St. & Main Ave	Asset relationship establishment
9	Verify linked asset display format	Shows "H-456 - Hydrant - Pine St. & Main Ave (0.1 miles)" with remove (×) button	Formatted display with distance	Correct information presentation
10	Use manual asset search by ID	Enter asset ID in search field, click search, specific asset returned	Search: "P-789"	Manual search capability testing
11	Select second asset using manual search	P-789 added to linked assets list, both assets now linked	Asset: P-789 - Water Main - Pine St. Section 3	Multiple asset linking support
12	Test asset type filter	Select "Valve" from type dropdown, search results filter to show only valves	Filter: Type = Valve	Filtering functionality
13	Test maximum asset linking limit	Attempt to link 6th asset when maximum is 5, system prevents with message	Try adding 6th asset	Business rule enforcement
14	Remove one linked asset using (×) button	P-789 removed from linked assets list, only H-456 remains linked	Remove P-789	Asset unlinking functionality
15	Test asset search with no results	Search for non-existent asset ID, display appropriate "no results" message	Search: "INVALID-ID"	No results handling
16	Re-link asset and submit incident	Incident created successfully with asset relationships persisted in database	Link P-789 back, submit form	Relationship persistence
17	Verify incident details page shows linked assets	Asset information displayed in "Linked Assets" section with edit capability	N/A	Asset display in incident view
18	Test asset unlinking from incident details	Remove asset from incident details page, relationship removed	Use remove button	Post-creation asset management
19	Verify asset history tracking	Asset linking/unlinking actions logged in incident status history	N/A	Audit trail for asset changes
20	Test asset search performance	Large asset database search completes within 1 second	1000+ assets in vicinity	Performance validation

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Assets successfully linked to incident with accurate distance calculations and proper data persistence
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Proximity search returns assets within specified radius sorted by distance
  • Manual asset search by ID/name functions correctly
  • Multiple assets can be linked and removed individually
  • Asset relationships persist after incident creation
  • Distance calculations accurate using geographical coordinates
  • Asset type filtering works correctly
  • Maximum linking limit enforced (5 assets)
  • Asset linking actions logged in audit trail
• Negative_Verification: No invalid asset associations, no distance calculation errors, no performance degradation with large datasets

---

Test Case 4: Performance Testing - Form Load and Submission

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_004
• Title: Validate incident form load time and submission performance under normal and stress load conditions
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Performance
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Performance
• Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Api, Database, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Performance, Type-Performance, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Performance-Critical, Load-Testing, Stress-Testing

Business Context

• Customer_Segment: Enterprise
• Revenue_Impact: Medium
• Business_Priority: Should-Have
• Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
• Compliance_Required: Yes
• SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of performance-critical paths
• Integration_Points: Database, API, GIS-Services, File-Upload-Service
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Performance, AX-Database-Performance
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Performance-Dashboard, SLA-Compliance, Load-Testing-Results
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: Performance requirements from all ACs, system SLA requirements
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_001 (Functional baseline), AX05US02_TC_006 (API performance)

Test Environment

• Environment: Performance Testing Environment
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 117+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11, 8GB RAM minimum
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Load testing tools, performance monitoring, database cluster, CDN
• Performance_Baseline: Form load <3 seconds, submission <2 seconds, API response <500ms
• Data_Requirements: Performance test dataset, concurrent user simulation data

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Load testing environment configured, monitoring tools active, baseline metrics established
• User_Roles_Permissions: Multiple test users with varying roles for concurrent testing
• Test_Data:
• • 100 unique customer records for testing
  • Various incident types and priorities
  • Performance monitoring configuration
  • Load testing scripts prepared
• Prior_Test_Cases: Functional tests passing (AX05US02_TC_001-004)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Measure baseline form load time (single user)	Form loads within 3 seconds consistently across 10 attempts	N/A	Establish performance baseline
2	Measure map component initialization time	GIS map displays within 2 seconds of form load	N/A	GIS service response time
3	Test input field responsiveness	All form inputs respond within 100ms of user interaction	Various input types	User experience validation
4	Measure asset proximity search performance	Search completes within 1 second with up to 50 assets in range	Location with many nearby assets	Search algorithm performance
5	Test form submission with minimal data	Submission processes within 2 seconds for basic incident	Basic required fields only	Minimal processing time
6	Test form submission with maximum data	Submission processes within 3 seconds with all fields, attachments	Complete form with files	Maximum processing load
7	Measure page transition time	Redirect to incident details within 1 second after submission	N/A	Navigation performance
8	Test concurrent user load (10 users)	All users can create incidents simultaneously without performance degradation	10 simultaneous sessions	Moderate concurrency
9	Test concurrent user load (25 users)	System maintains acceptable performance with 25 concurrent users	25 simultaneous sessions	High concurrency testing
10	Test concurrent user load (50 users)	System performance within acceptable thresholds or graceful degradation	50 simultaneous sessions	Stress testing
11	Monitor database performance during load	Database response times remain under 200ms during concurrent operations	N/A	Database performance monitoring
12	Test file upload performance	10MB file uploads complete within 30 seconds on standard connection	10MB test file	File processing performance
13	Monitor memory usage during testing	Application memory usage remains stable, no memory leaks detected	N/A	Resource utilization monitoring
14	Test API endpoint performance	All incident API calls respond within 500ms under normal load	API load testing	Backend performance validation
15	Test performance with large datasets	Form performance maintained with 10,000+ existing incidents	Large data volume	Scalability testing
16	Measure recovery time after load	System returns to baseline performance within 2 minutes after load test	N/A	Recovery performance
17	Test geographical data processing	Location geocoding and asset proximity calculations under 1 second	Multiple locations	GIS performance testing
18	Monitor third-party service impact	External service delays don't block form functionality beyond 5 seconds	Simulated service delays	Dependency resilience
19	Test browser caching effectiveness	Subsequent form loads faster due to cached resources	Multiple page loads	Caching optimization
20	Generate performance report	All metrics documented with trends and recommendations	N/A	Performance analysis compilation

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: All performance metrics meet specified thresholds under normal and stress load conditions
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Form load time consistently <3 seconds across all browsers
  • Submission time consistently <2 seconds for standard data
  • Map loading <2 seconds with stable GIS service
  • Asset search performance <1 second with up to 50 results
  • Concurrent user handling up to 50 users without significant degradation
  • Database response times <200ms during peak load
  • API response times <500ms for all endpoints
  • Memory usage stable without leaks during extended testing
• Negative_Verification: No system crashes under load, no data corruption during concurrent operations, no unrecoverable performance degradation

---

Test Case 5: API Integration Testing

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_005
• Title: Validate incident creation and management API endpoints with comprehensive data flow testing
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: API
• Test Level: Integration
• Priority: P1-Critical
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, API, Database, Integration-End-to-End, MOD-Incidents, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-API, Platform-Both, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, External-Dependency, Backend-Services, Data-Validation

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: 10 minutes
• Reproducibility_Score: High
• Data_Sensitivity: High
• Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of incident API endpoints
• Integration_Points: Incident-API, Customer-API, GIS-API, Asset-API, Notification-API
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-API, AX-API-Gateway
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Both

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: API-Coverage, Integration-Tests, Backend-Quality
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: Critical

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC01, AX05US02-AC02, all data validation requirements
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_001 (UI Integration), AX05US02_TC_002 (Validation)

Test Environment

• Environment: API Testing Environment
• Browser/Version: Postman/Newman, API testing tools
• Device/OS: API client applications
• Screen_Resolution: N/A (API testing)
• Dependencies: Incident API service, customer database API, GIS geocoding API, asset management API, authentication service
• Performance_Baseline: API response <500ms, database operations <200ms
• Data_Requirements: Test datasets for all API scenarios, authentication tokens, API documentation

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: API testing environment configured, authentication service active, test data populated
• User_Roles_Permissions: API access tokens for different user roles and permissions
• Test_Data:
• • Valid JSON payloads for all test scenarios
  • Invalid data for negative testing
  • Authentication tokens for role-based testing
  • Database verification queries
• Prior_Test_Cases: Authentication API tests successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	POST /api/incidents with complete valid payload	HTTP 201 Created response with incident ID and location header	{"customer_name": "Anna Rivera", "phone": "(555) 123-4567", "email": "a.rivera@email.com", "incident_type": "Low Pressure", "priority": "High", "description": "Water pressure very low", "location": {"address": "412 Pine Street", "latitude": 40.7128, "longitude": -74.0060}}	Complete incident creation
2	Verify response includes auto-generated incident ID	Response contains incident ID in INC-YYYY-NNN format in response body and headers	N/A	ID format validation and header presence
3	Verify response timing and performance	API response received within 500ms	N/A	Performance requirement validation
4	GET /api/incidents/{incident_id} to verify creation	Returns complete incident data matching POST payload	Use incident ID from step 1	Data persistence verification
5	Verify database record creation	Direct database query confirms incident stored correctly with all fields	SQL: SELECT * FROM incidents WHERE id = 'INC-2025-XXX'	Database integration validation
6	POST /api/incidents with invalid customer phone	HTTP 400 Bad Request with specific validation error for phone format	{"phone": "invalid-phone-format"} + other valid fields	Input validation at API level
7	POST /api/incidents with missing mandatory fields	HTTP 400 Bad Request with comprehensive field error list	{"description": "Missing required fields"}	Required field validation
8	POST /api/incidents with invalid incident type	HTTP 400 Bad Request with allowed values listed	{"incident_type": "InvalidType"} + other valid fields	Enum validation testing
9	POST /api/incidents with invalid coordinates	HTTP 400 Bad Request with coordinate range validation error	{"latitude": 999, "longitude": 999}	Geographic validation
10	GET /api/incidents with location-based search	Returns incidents within specified radius sorted by distance	GET /api/incidents?lat=40.7128&lng=-74.0060&radius=5	Location-based query functionality
11	PUT /api/incidents/{incident_id}/status with valid transition	HTTP 200 OK with updated status and audit trail entry	{"status": "Investigating", "notes": "Technician assigned"}	Status management API
12	PUT /api/incidents/{incident_id}/status with invalid transition	HTTP 400 Bad Request with allowed status transitions	{"status": "Resolved"} from "New"	Business rule enforcement
13	POST /api/incidents/{incident_id}/assets to link asset	HTTP 201 Created with asset relationship established	{"asset_id": "P-789", "distance": 0.2}	Asset linking API
14	GET /api/incidents/{incident_id}/assets to verify linking	Returns linked assets with distance calculations	N/A	Asset relationship retrieval
15	POST /api/incidents/{incident_id}/attachments for file upload	HTTP 201 Created with file metadata and download URL	Multipart form data with test file	File upload API
16	GET /api/incidents with filtering and pagination	Returns filtered results with proper pagination headers	GET /api/incidents?status=New&page=1&limit=10	Query and pagination API
17	DELETE /api/incidents/{incident_id} with proper authorization	HTTP 204 No Content for authorized users, 403 for unauthorized	Admin token vs regular user token	Authorization testing
18	Test API rate limiting	HTTP 429 Too Many Requests after exceeding rate limits	Multiple rapid requests	Rate limiting validation
19	Test API with malformed JSON	HTTP 400 Bad Request with JSON parsing error	Invalid JSON syntax	Input format validation
20	Verify API audit logging	All API calls logged with user attribution and timestamps	Check audit logs table	Security and compliance

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: All API endpoints function correctly with proper HTTP status codes and response formats
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Data validation enforced at API level matching UI validation rules
  • Database persistence working correctly for all operations
  • Error responses include helpful information for debugging
  • Asset linking API functions with proper distance calculations
  • File upload API handles various file types and sizes correctly
  • Search and filtering APIs return accurate results
  • Rate limiting and security controls function properly
  • API performance meets specified response time requirements
• Negative_Verification: Invalid requests properly rejected, no data corruption, no security vulnerabilities exposed

---

Test Case 6: File Attachment and Photo Upload

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_006
• Title: Validate comprehensive file attachment functionality with size, format restrictions, and metadata handling
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Functional
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Database, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-QA, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Low, File-Upload, Document-Management, Storage-Testing

Business Context

• Customer_Segment: All
• Revenue_Impact: Low
• 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: 12 minutes
• Reproducibility_Score: High
• Data_Sensitivity: Medium
• Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of file attachment functionality
• Integration_Points: File-Storage-Service, Virus-Scanning, Metadata-Extraction, Database
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Files, AX-File-Management
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: QA
• Report_Categories: File-Handling-Tests, Storage-Compliance, Document-Management
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: No
• Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC11
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_001 (Incident Creation), AX05US02_TC_004 (Mobile Upload)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 117+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: File storage service, virus scanning service, image processing service, metadata extraction
• Performance_Baseline: Upload <30 seconds for 10MB file, processing <10 seconds
• Data_Requirements: Test files of various formats and sizes, virus test files, metadata test files

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: File storage configured, virus scanning active, upload limits set
• User_Roles_Permissions: User with file upload permissions
• Test_Data:
• • Valid files: test-photo.jpg (5MB), incident-report.pdf (8MB), diagram.png (3MB)
  • Invalid files: large-file.jpg (15MB), virus-test.exe, script.js
  • Metadata test files with EXIF data
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident creation successful (AX05US02_TC_001)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create incident and navigate to Photos & Attachments section	Upload section displays with "Upload Files" button and current message: "No photos or attachments have been uploaded"	Valid incident data	Prerequisite step and initial state
2	Click "Upload Files" button	File selection dialog opens with multiple selection enabled	N/A	File picker interface
3	Select valid JPG file under 10MB	File uploads successfully, progress indicator shown, file appears in attachments list	test-photo.jpg (5MB)	Supported format validation
4	Verify file metadata display	Shows filename, file size (5.0 MB), upload date/time, file type icon	N/A	Metadata extraction and display
5	Upload valid PDF document under 10MB	Document uploads successfully with PDF icon and metadata	incident-report.pdf (8MB)	Multiple format support
6	Upload PNG image with EXIF data	Image uploads with metadata extraction, shows dimensions and camera info if available	diagram.png (3MB) with EXIF	EXIF data processing
7	Attempt to upload file exceeding 10MB limit	Upload rejected immediately with error message: "File size exceeds 10MB limit"	large-file.jpg (15MB)	Size limit enforcement
8	Attempt to upload unsupported file format	Upload rejected with message: "File type not supported. Allowed: JPG, PNG, PDF, DOC, DOCX"	test-script.js	Format restriction validation
9	Test virus scanning (if enabled)	Virus-infected file rejected with security warning	virus-test.exe (if safe test file available)	Security scanning
10	Upload files approaching maximum count	System tracks count, warns when approaching limit of 20 files	Upload 18 more valid files	Count tracking
11	Upload maximum allowed files (20 total)	All files upload successfully, counter shows 20/20	2 additional files to reach 20	Maximum limit validation
12	Attempt to upload 21st file	Upload prevented with message: "Maximum of 20 files allowed per incident"	Any additional valid file	Limit enforcement
13	Test file download functionality	Click download link, file downloads correctly with original filename	Any uploaded file	File retrieval
14	Test file preview (images)	Image files show thumbnail preview, click to view full size	test-photo.jpg	Image preview functionality
15	Remove an uploaded file	Click remove (×) button, file removed from list, count decreases	Remove any file	File management
16	Upload file after removal	New file uploads successfully, count updates correctly	New test file	Post-removal upload
17	Test drag-and-drop upload	Drag files from file explorer to upload area, files upload automatically	Multiple files via drag-drop	Alternative upload method
18	Test concurrent file uploads	Select multiple files, all upload with individual progress indicators	5 files simultaneously	Concurrent upload handling
19	Verify file storage persistence	Refresh page, all uploaded files remain in attachments list	N/A	Data persistence validation
20	Test file attachment in incident details	Navigate to incident details, attachments section shows all files with download options	N/A	Integration with incident view

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: File upload system respects 10MB size limit and 20 file maximum with proper format validation
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Only supported file formats (JPG, PNG, PDF, DOC, DOCX) accepted
  • File metadata extracted and displayed accurately
  • Progress indicators shown during upload process
  • Download functionality works for all file types
  • File removal updates count and storage correctly
  • Drag-and-drop upload alternative functions properly
  • Concurrent uploads handled without errors
  • Virus scanning (if enabled) blocks malicious files
  • File persistence across page refreshes and navigation
• Negative_Verification: No unsupported files accepted, no size limit bypasses, no file corruption during upload/download

---

Test Case 7: Status History and Audit Trail

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_007
• Title: Validate comprehensive status history tracking with timestamps, user attribution, and audit trail integrity
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Functional
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P1-Critical
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Database, MOD-Incidents, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Audit-Trail, Status-Management, Compliance-Testing

Business Context

• Customer_Segment: Enterprise
• Revenue_Impact: Medium
• Business_Priority: Must-Have
• Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
• Compliance_Required: Yes
• SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of audit trail functionality
• Integration_Points: Database-Audit, User-Management, Timestamp-Service, Status-Engine
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Audit, AX-Audit-Trail
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Audit-Compliance, Data-Integrity, Status-Management
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC10, AX05US02-AC20
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_001 (Incident Creation), AX05US02_TC_009 (Role Permissions)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Audit service, database triggers, timestamp service, user session management
• Performance_Baseline: Audit entry creation <100ms, history retrieval <500ms
• Data_Requirements: Multiple user accounts, audit configuration, timezone settings

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Audit trail enabled, multiple user accounts configured, timestamp synchronization active
• User_Roles_Permissions: Multiple user roles: Call Center Rep, Dispatcher, Field Technician, Asset Manager
• Test_Data:
• • User accounts: callcenter_rep1, dispatcher1, field_tech1, asset_mgr1
  • Status transitions: New → Investigating → Asset Identified → Resolved
  • Test notes and comments for various actions
• Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication and incident creation successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create new incident as Call Center Representative	Initial status history entry created automatically	Login: callcenter_rep1, create incident with full data	System-generated audit entry
2	Verify initial audit trail entry	History shows: Date/Time, Event: "Reported", Details: "Initial customer report submitted", Performed By: "callcenter_rep1"	N/A	Automatic system logging with correct attribution
3	Navigate to incident Status History section	Status History table displays with proper column headers: Date/Time, Event, Details/Comment, Performed By	N/A	UI layout verification
4	Login as Dispatcher and assign incident	Assignment action logged in status history	Login: dispatcher1, assign to field_tech1	User context switching
5	Verify assignment audit entry	New entry: Date/Time, Event: "Assignment", Details: "Assigned to David Chen (Field Technician)", Performed By: "dispatcher1"	Assigned technician: David Chen	Assignment tracking
6	Update incident status to "Investigating"	Status change logged with transition details	Status change by dispatcher1	Status progression tracking
7	Verify status change audit entry	Entry shows: Event: "Status Change", Details: "New → Investigating", Performed By: "dispatcher1", accurate timestamp	N/A	Status transition logging
8	Login as Field Technician and add investigation notes	Notes addition logged in history with content summary	Login: field_tech1, add: "Confirmed low pressure at meter, checking main line"	Content modification tracking
9	Verify notes audit entry	Entry: Event: "Investigation Update", Details: "Technician notes added", Performed By: "field_tech1"	N/A	Content change tracking
10	Upload attachment as technician	File upload action recorded in audit trail	Upload: before-repair.jpg	Document changes tracked
11	Verify attachment audit entry	Entry: Event: "Attachment Added", Details: "before-repair.jpg uploaded", Performed By: "field_tech1"	N/A	File operations logged
12	Login as Asset Manager and link asset	Asset linking action recorded with asset details	Login: asset_mgr1, link asset P-789	Asset relationship changes
13	Verify asset linking audit entry	Entry: Event: "Asset Linked", Details: "Asset P-789 - Water Main linked", Performed By: "asset_mgr1"	N/A	Asset operations tracked
14	Update incident priority from High to Medium	Priority change logged with justification field	Priority change with reason: "Assessed impact lower than initially thought"	Administrative changes
15	Verify priority change audit entry	Entry: Event: "Priority Change", Details: "High → Medium: Assessed impact lower", Performed By: current user	N/A	Priority modification tracking
16	Change assignment to different technician	Assignment change logged with old and new assignee	Reassign from David Chen to Sarah Johnson	Assignment history
17	Resolve incident with resolution notes	Resolution logged with final status and method	Status: Resolved, Method: "Pressure regulator replaced", Final notes	Completion tracking
18	Verify resolution audit entry	Entry: Event: "Resolved", Details: "Pressure regulator replaced", Performed By: field technician	N/A	Resolution documentation
19	Verify complete audit trail chronology	All actions listed chronologically with no gaps, timestamps in ascending order	N/A	Complete history maintained
20	Test audit trail integrity	Attempt to modify audit entries directly (should fail), verify read-only nature	N/A	Data integrity protection

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: All incident modifications tracked in audit trail with accurate timestamps and user attribution
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Chronological order maintained in status history
  • No missing audit entries for any system actions
  • User attribution accurate across different login sessions
  • Timestamps reflect actual action times (within 1 second accuracy)
  • Status transitions properly documented with before/after states
  • File operations (upload/download/delete) tracked
  • Asset linking/unlinking operations logged
  • Priority and assignment changes documented with reasons
  • Audit entries are read-only and tamper-proof
  • Historical data preserved indefinitely for compliance
• Negative_Verification: No audit entry modification possible, no missing entries, no incorrect user attribution

---

Test Case 8: Role-Based Permissions and Access Control

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_008
• Title: Validate comprehensive role-based permissions for incident management actions with security enforcement
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Security
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P1-Critical
• Execution Phase: Smoke
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Security, MOD-Incidents, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Security, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Access-Control, Role-Based-Security, Authorization-Testing

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: 20 minutes
• Reproducibility_Score: High
• Data_Sensitivity: High
• Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of role-based access control
• Integration_Points: Authentication-Service, Authorization-Engine, User-Management, Session-Management
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Security-RBAC, AX-Incidents-Permissions
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Security-Tests, Access-Control-Coverage, Compliance-Validation
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: Critical

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC13, Security requirements across all ACs
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX01US01_TC_003 (Authentication), AX05US02_TC_008 (Audit Trail)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Authentication service, role management system, permission engine, session management
• Performance_Baseline: Permission check <50ms, unauthorized access blocked within 100ms
• Data_Requirements: User accounts with different roles, permission matrix configuration

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Role-based access control enabled, all user roles configured with proper permissions
• User_Roles_Permissions:
• • Call Center Representative: Create, view, edit own incidents
  • Field Technician: View assigned, update status, add notes
  • Asset Manager: View all, link assets, generate reports
  • Dispatcher: View all, assign, escalate, modify priorities
  • System Administrator: Full access including deletion
• Test_Data:
• • User accounts for each role with known passwords
  • Test incidents owned by different users
  • Various incident statuses for testing
• Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication working (AX01US01_TC_001)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Login as Call Center Representative	Dashboard displays with appropriate menu options, "Add New Incident" button visible	Username: callcenter_rep1, Password: Test123!	Basic role verification
2	Verify incident creation access	Can access incident creation form, all fields editable	N/A	Creation permission validation
3	Create incident as Call Center Rep	Incident created successfully, user becomes owner	Standard incident data	Ownership establishment
4	Verify edit access to own incident	Can edit incident details, save changes successfully	Modify description	Ownership-based editing
5	Verify asset linking restrictions	"Link Asset" functionality not visible or disabled for Call Center Rep	N/A	Role-based feature restriction
6	Test incident deletion attempt	Delete option not available or results in access denied error	N/A	Deletion restriction enforcement
7	Login as Field Technician	Dashboard shows assigned incidents, limited menu options	Username: field_tech1, Password: Test123!	Field role verification
8	Verify assigned incident access	Can view incidents assigned to current user, status update options available	View assigned incidents	Assignment-based access
9	Test status update permissions	Can update status to "Investigating", "Asset Identified", "Resolved"	Change status to "Investigating"	Status modification rights
10	Test technician notes access	Can add technician notes and investigation findings	Add: "Checked pressure at main line"	Field documentation rights
11	Verify restricted incident access	Cannot view incidents not assigned to current technician	Try accessing other user's incident	Assignment-based restriction
12	Test asset linking restrictions for technician	Asset linking not available or restricted based on role configuration	N/A	Asset management restriction
13	Login as Asset Manager	Dashboard shows asset management options, incident overview available	Username: asset_mgr1, Password: Test123!	Asset role verification
14	Verify asset linking permissions	"Link Asset" button visible and functional, asset search available	Access asset linking feature	Asset management rights
15	Test asset search and linking	Can search assets, link to incidents, view asset correlation data	Link asset P-789 to incident	Asset operation permissions
16	Verify incident viewing scope	Can view all incidents for asset analysis, not limited to owned incidents	Browse all incidents	Broader viewing permissions
17	Test incident creation restrictions	Cannot create new incidents (role-specific limitation) or option not prominent	N/A	Creation permission control
18	Login as Dispatcher	Dashboard shows dispatch queue, assignment options, priority management	Username: dispatcher1, Password: Test123!	Dispatch role verification
19	Verify assignment permissions	Can assign/reassign incidents to technicians, assignment dropdown available	Assign incident to field_tech1	Assignment control rights
20	Test priority modification	Can escalate/change incident priorities, priority dropdown editable	Change priority High to Critical	Priority management rights
21	Verify dispatch viewing scope	Can view all incidents regardless of assignment or ownership	View all incidents	Full viewing permissions
22	Test escalation capabilities	Can escalate incidents to supervisors, escalation options available	Escalate to supervisor	Escalation authority
23	Login as System Administrator	Full dashboard access, all management options visible including user management	Username: admin_user1, Password: Admin123!	Administrative access
24	Verify full incident access	Can view, edit, delete any incident regardless of ownership	Access any incident	Unrestricted permissions
25	Test incident deletion	Can delete incidents with confirmation dialog, action logged in audit trail	Delete test incident	Deletion capability
26	Verify system configuration access	Can access incident type configuration, priority settings, system rules	Access admin settings	Configuration permissions
27	Test cross-role data access	Admin can see actions performed by all roles in audit trails	Review audit history	Cross-role visibility
28	Test permission inheritance	Users with multiple roles inherit cumulative permissions appropriately	User with Tech + Asset roles	Role combination handling
29	Verify session timeout behavior	Session expires after configured timeout, requires re-authentication	Wait for session timeout	Session security
30	Test unauthorized URL access	Direct URL access to restricted functions returns access denied	Access admin URL as regular user	URL-level security

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Users can only perform actions explicitly allowed by their assigned role(s)
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • UI elements hidden/shown based on user permissions
  • Unauthorized actions blocked at both UI and API levels
  • Role-based data access enforced (ownership, assignment, global)
  • Permission checks occur in real-time without performance impact
  • Session management enforces security policies
  • Audit trail captures all permission-based actions
  • Multiple role inheritance works correctly
  • URL-level access control prevents direct access bypasses
  • Error messages don't reveal system information to unauthorized users
• Negative_Verification: No permission bypasses possible, no privilege escalation, no unauthorized data access

---

Test Case 9: Real-Time Notifications System

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_009
• Title: Validate comprehensive real-time notification system for status changes to all relevant stakeholders
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Integration
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Integration-End-to-End, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Real-Time-Notifications, External-Dependency, Communication-Testing

Business Context

• Customer_Segment: Enterprise
• Revenue_Impact: Medium
• Business_Priority: Should-Have
• Customer_Journey: Daily-Usage
• Compliance_Required: Yes
• SLA_Related: Yes

Quality Metrics

• Risk_Level: Medium
• Complexity_Level: High
• Expected_Execution_Time: 18 minutes
• Reproducibility_Score: High
• Data_Sensitivity: Medium
• Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of notification functionality
• Integration_Points: Notification-Service, Email-Service, SMS-Gateway, Push-Notification-Service, WebSocket-Service
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Notifications, AX-Notification-Engine
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Integration-Tests, Communication-Coverage, Real-Time-Performance
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: No
• Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC12
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_008 (Status Changes), AX05US02_TC_015 (Customer Portal)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 117+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11, Mobile devices for push notifications
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Notification service, email service (SMTP), SMS gateway, push notification service, WebSocket server
• Performance_Baseline: Notification delivery <30 seconds, real-time updates <5 seconds
• Data_Requirements: Test email accounts, SMS test numbers, notification templates, stakeholder mapping

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: All notification services configured and active, test communication channels verified
• User_Roles_Permissions: Multiple stakeholder accounts with notification preferences set
• Test_Data:
• • Customer: a.rivera@email.com, (555) 123-4567
  • Technician: d.chen@utility.com, (555) 987-6543
  • Dispatcher: j.doe@utility.com, (555) 456-7890
  • Manager: m.smith@utility.com, (555) 321-0987
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident creation and status management working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create new incident with customer contact information	Customer receives incident creation notification via email within 30 seconds	Customer: Anna Rivera, Email: a.rivera@email.com, Phone: (555) 123-4567	Initial notification trigger
2	Verify customer notification content	Email contains incident ID, description, estimated response time, contact information	Incident ID: INC-2025-088	Content accuracy validation
3	Assign incident to field technician	Technician receives assignment notification via email and/or SMS based on preferences	Assign to: David Chen, Email preference set	Assignment alert delivery
4	Apply multiple status filters	Multi-select dropdown allows combination of statuses	Status filter: New, Investigating, Resolved	Multi-criteria filtering
5	Apply priority filter	Priority filter options available and functional	Priority filter: High, Critical	Priority-based filtering
6	Apply incident type filter	Type filter shows all available incident types	Type filter: Low Pressure, No Water	Type-based filtering
7	Verify filtered results count	Status bar shows number of filtered incidents before export	Display: "Showing 245 of 1,247 incidents"	Filter result preview
8	Click "Export" button	Export options dialog displays with format choices	N/A	Export initiation
9	Select CSV export format	CSV option selected, additional CSV-specific options shown	Format: CSV, Delimiter: Comma	Format selection
10	Configure export columns	Column selection allows customization of exported fields	Include: ID, Status, Priority, Customer, Location, Date, Description	Column customization
11	Initiate CSV export	Export process starts with progress indicator displayed	N/A	Export processing
12	Monitor export progress	Progress bar shows completion percentage, estimated time remaining	N/A	Progress indication
13	Complete CSV export	File generation completes, download link provided	incidents_export_2025-08-17.csv	File completion
14	Download CSV file	File downloads successfully with correct filename and timestamp	N/A	File delivery
15	Verify CSV data completeness	All filtered incidents included in export, no missing records	Verify 245 records in CSV	Data completeness
16	Check CSV data accuracy	Sample records match system data exactly	Compare first 10 records	Data accuracy verification
17	Verify CSV formatting	Proper CSV format with headers, escaped special characters	Headers: "Incident ID", "Status", "Priority", etc.	Format validation
18	Test Excel (XLSX) export format	Select XLSX format, export generates proper Excel file	Format: Excel (.xlsx)	Alternative format testing
19	Verify Excel formatting	XLSX file opens correctly with proper formatting, column types	Date columns formatted as dates, numbers as numbers	Excel-specific formatting
20	Test large dataset export	Export 1000+ incidents, monitor performance and completion	No filters (full dataset)	Performance validation
21	Verify large export performance	Large export completes within 60 seconds, no timeouts	1000+ records export	Performance requirement
22	Test export with no results	Apply filters resulting in no matches, verify appropriate handling	Filter for non-existent status	Empty result handling
23	Verify empty export handling	System shows message: "No incidents match current filters"	N/A	No-data scenario
24	Test concurrent export requests	Multiple users can export simultaneously without conflicts	2+ users export at same time	Concurrency testing
25	Verify export audit logging	Export actions logged with user, timestamp, filter criteria	Audit log entry created	Activity tracking
26	Test export file retention	Exported files available for download for specified retention period	Files accessible for 24 hours	File management
27	Verify export security	Exported data only includes incidents user has permission to view	Export as limited user	Security validation
28	Test export cancellation	User can cancel long-running export, system handles gracefully	Cancel during large export	Cancellation handling
29	Generate summary report	Export includes summary statistics: total incidents, by status, by priority	Summary section in export	Statistical reporting
30	Verify export metadata	Export file includes metadata: generation date, user, filter criteria	Header with export details	Metadata inclusion

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Bulk export generates accurate data files in requested formats with proper filtering applied
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • All applied filters correctly limit exported data
  • Multiple export formats (CSV, Excel) function properly
  • Column customization allows user control over exported fields
  • Large dataset exports complete within performance requirements
  • Export progress indication provides user feedback
  • Data accuracy maintained between system and export files
  • File formatting appropriate for selected format
  • Concurrent exports don't interfere with each other
  • Export actions properly logged for audit purposes
  • Security permissions respected in exported data
  • Empty result scenarios handled appropriately
  • Export cancellation works without system issues
• Negative_Verification: No data corruption in exports, no unauthorized data access, no performance degradation

Test Case 10: Dispatch System Integration and Technician Assignment

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_010
• Title: Validate comprehensive integration with dispatch system for intelligent technician assignment and resource optimization
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Integration
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P1-Critical
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Integration-End-to-End, MOD-Incidents, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Dispatch-Integration, External-Dependency, Resource-Management

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: 25 minutes
• Reproducibility_Score: High
• Data_Sensitivity: Medium
• Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of dispatch integration functionality
• Integration_Points: Dispatch-Management-System, Technician-Availability-API, Skills-Database, GPS-Tracking, Workload-Management
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Dispatch, AX-Dispatch-Integration, AX-Resource-Optimization
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Integration-Tests, Resource-Optimization, Dispatch-Efficiency
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: Critical

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC14
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_009 (Role Permissions), AX05US02_TC_014 (SLA Tracking)

Test Environment

• Environment: Integration Testing Environment
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Dispatch management system, technician availability API, skills database, GPS tracking service, workload management system
• Performance_Baseline: Assignment algorithm <3 seconds, availability check <1 second
• Data_Requirements: Technician profiles with skills and availability, GPS location data, workload tracking data

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Dispatch system integrated, technician profiles configured, GPS tracking active, assignment algorithm calibrated
• User_Roles_Permissions: Dispatcher permissions, technician management access, system integration credentials
• Test_Data:
• • Technicians: David Chen (Pressure specialist, GPS: 40.7100, -74.0050), Sarah Johnson (General, GPS: 40.7150, -74.0080), Mike Rodriguez (Emergency, GPS: 40.7080, -74.0030)
  • Skills: Pressure issues, Emergency response, Pipe repair, Meter installation
  • Workload: Current assignments per technician
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident creation and technician authentication successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create high-priority water pressure incident	System automatically triggers assignment algorithm within 3 seconds	Priority: High, Type: Low Pressure, Location: Pine Street	Auto-assignment trigger
2	Verify assignment algorithm execution	Assignment process evaluates technician location, skills, current workload, availability	N/A	Algorithm comprehensive evaluation
3	Check automatic technician selection	Incident assigned to David Chen (pressure specialist, closest available)	Expected: David Chen based on skills and proximity	Optimal assignment logic
4	Verify assignment notification delivery	David Chen receives mobile notification with incident details and location	Notification to d.chen@utility.com	Real-time assignment communication
5	Test manual assignment override capability	Dispatcher can reassign incident to different technician with reason	Reassign to Sarah Johnson, Reason: "David unavailable"	Override functionality
6	Verify override audit trail	Assignment change logged with reason and dispatcher information	Audit: "Reassigned by dispatcher1: David unavailable"	Assignment change tracking
7	Create multiple concurrent incidents	System distributes assignments to balance workload across available technicians	Create 5 incidents simultaneously	Load balancing verification
8	Verify workload distribution	No single technician assigned more than 3 active incidents unless necessary	Check assignment distribution	Workload balancing enforcement
9	Test skill-based assignment logic	Gas leak incident automatically assigned to emergency response certified technician	Incident Type: Gas Leak, Expected: Mike Rodriguez	Skill matching algorithm
10	Verify skills database integration	Assignment considers technician certifications and specializations	Mike Rodriguez: Emergency Response Certified	Skills-based assignment
11	Test geographical optimization	Incident assigned to technician with shortest travel time, not just distance	Multiple incidents, various technician locations	GPS-based optimization
12	Verify GPS integration accuracy	System calculates accurate travel times using current traffic conditions	Real GPS coordinates and traffic data	Location-based assignment
13	Test availability checking	System skips technicians marked as unavailable or off-duty	Set David Chen status: "Off Duty"	Availability filtering
14	Verify availability status respect	Unavailable technicians not assigned new incidents automatically	David Chen should not receive assignments	Status enforcement
15	Test escalation for no availability	When all technicians at capacity, system escalates to supervisor for manual assignment	All techs assigned 3+ incidents	Escalation handling
16	Verify escalation notification	Supervisor receives notification: "No available technicians for assignment"	Notification to supervisor account	Escalation alert system
17	Test emergency priority handling	Critical incidents override normal assignment rules for fastest response	Priority: Critical, Type: No Water	Emergency assignment logic
18	Verify emergency assignment speed	Critical incidents assigned within 30 seconds regardless of workload	N/A	Emergency response optimization
19	Test assignment acknowledgment	Technician must acknowledge assignment within specified timeframe	David Chen acknowledges within 5 minutes	Acknowledgment tracking
20	Verify acknowledgment timeout	Unacknowledged assignments escalated and reassigned automatically	No acknowledgment after 10 minutes	Timeout escalation
21	Test assignment history tracking	Complete assignment history maintained with timestamps and reasons	N/A	Assignment audit trail
22	Verify SLA compliance monitoring	System tracks response time from assignment to technician arrival	Assignment to site arrival tracking	Performance monitoring
23	Test workload capacity limits	System prevents overassignment beyond configured capacity limits	Max 5 active incidents per technician	Capacity management
24	Verify capacity threshold warnings	Warnings generated when approaching capacity limits	80% capacity threshold	Proactive capacity management
25	Test integration failure handling	System handles dispatch service unavailability gracefully	Simulate dispatch service down	Fallback assignment procedures

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Incidents automatically assigned to optimal technicians based on location, skills, availability, and workload
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Assignment algorithm considers all optimization factors comprehensively
  • Skill matching ensures appropriate technician expertise for incident types
  • GPS integration provides accurate location-based assignment
  • Workload balancing prevents technician overassignment
  • Emergency incidents receive priority assignment handling
  • Manual override capability available for dispatchers
  • Assignment acknowledgment and timeout handling works correctly
  • Escalation procedures activate when no technicians available
  • Complete assignment audit trail maintained
  • SLA compliance monitoring tracks response times
  • System handles integration failures gracefully
• Negative_Verification: No inappropriate assignments, no skill mismatches, no capacity limit violations, no assignment failures

---

Test Case 11: Service Order Generation

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_011
• Title: Validate comprehensive service order generation from incident reports with workflow integration
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Integration
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Integration-End-to-End, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Service-Order-Integration, Work-Management, Workflow-Testing

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: Medium
• Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of service order integration
• Integration_Points: Work-Order-Management-System, Parts-Inventory-System, Scheduling-System, Cost-Estimation
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-ServiceOrders, AX-WorkOrder-Integration
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: Integration-Tests, Work-Management, Process-Automation
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: No
• Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC15
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_008 (Status Management), AX06US01_TC_005 (Work Order Management)

Test Environment

• Environment: Integration Testing Environment
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Work order management system, parts inventory system, scheduling system, cost estimation service
• Performance_Baseline: Service order creation <5 seconds, inventory check <2 seconds
• Data_Requirements: Parts catalog, labor rates, scheduling calendar, cost estimation data

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Work order system integrated, parts inventory connected, scheduling system active, cost estimation configured
• User_Roles_Permissions: Field Technician with service order creation rights, Work Order Manager access
• Test_Data:
• • Incident requiring repair: Water main leak requiring pipe section replacement
  • Parts: 6" pipe section (Stock ID: PP-6-100), Fittings (Stock ID: FT-6-ELB)
  • Labor: Pipe replacement (4 hours estimated)
  • Scheduling: Available time slots
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident investigation completed, repair need identified

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Complete incident investigation identifying repair need	Incident status updated to show repair required, technician notes documented	Investigation complete: "6-inch water main section needs replacement"	Prerequisite for service order
2	Navigate to incident details page	"Create Service Order" button appears in Quick Actions section	N/A	Service order integration point
3	Click "Create Service Order" button	Service order creation form opens with incident context pre-populated	N/A	Form integration and data transfer
4	Verify incident data pre-population	Customer information, location, incident description automatically filled	Customer: Anna Rivera, Location: 412 Pine Street, Description: Water main leak	Data transfer accuracy
5	Select work type from predefined options	Work type dropdown shows relevant options based on incident type	Select: "Pipe Replacement"	Work categorization
6	Add detailed work description	Text area accepts specific work requirements and scope	"Replace 6-inch water main section between manholes MH-15 and MH-16"	Work scope definition
7	Search and add required parts	Parts search returns inventory items with availability and cost	Search: "6 inch pipe", Add: PP-6-100 (6" Pipe Section)	Parts inventory integration
8	Verify parts availability check	System shows current inventory levels and estimated cost	PP-6-100: 5 units available, $150 each	Inventory validation
9	Add additional parts and materials	Multiple parts can be added with quantities	Add: FT-6-ELB (2 units), Gaskets, Joint compound	Material requirements
10	Estimate labor hours and skills required	Labor estimation fields accept hours and skill requirements	Estimated Duration: 6 hours, Skills: Pipe fitting, Traffic control	Resource planning
11	Check scheduling integration	Available time slots shown based on technician calendar and urgency	Next available: Tomorrow 8:00 AM, Duration: Full day	Schedule coordination
12	Add cost estimates	System calculates total cost including parts, labor, and overhead	Parts: $400, Labor: $450, Total: $850	Cost calculation
13	Submit service order for approval	Service order submitted with unique ID generation	N/A	Service order creation
14	Verify service order ID format	Unique ID generated in SO-YYYY-NNN format	Expected: SO-2025-001	ID generation consistency
15	Check incident status update	Incident status automatically updated to "Service Order Created"	Status change with SO reference	Bidirectional integration
16	Verify service order-incident linkage	Service order shows originating incident ID, incident shows linked service order	Bidirectional reference: INC-2025-088 ↔ SO-2025-001	Relationship establishment
17	Test service order approval workflow	Service order routed to appropriate approver based on cost threshold	Cost > $500 requires supervisor approval	Approval routing
18	Approve service order	Approved service order triggers parts reservation and scheduling	Approve SO-2025-001	Workflow progression
19	Verify parts reservation	Required parts reserved in inventory, availability updated	PP-6-100: 4 units remaining (1 reserved)	Inventory management
20	Test service order completion workflow	Mark service order complete, incident status updates accordingly	Complete SO-2025-001 with final notes	Completion integration
21	Verify incident closure capability	Completed service order enables incident resolution	Incident can now be marked "Resolved"	End-to-end workflow
22	Test service order modification	Changes to service order reflect in incident history	Modify parts list, increase labor estimate	Change tracking
23	Verify cost tracking	Actual costs tracked against estimates, variance calculated	Actual: $920 vs Estimate: $850 (8% over)	Cost management
24	Test service order cancellation	Cancelled service orders release parts reservation, update incident	Cancel service order, parts returned to inventory	Cancellation handling
25	Generate service order reports	Reports show service order metrics, completion rates, cost analysis	Monthly service order summary	Reporting integration

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Service orders successfully created from incidents with proper data transfer and workflow integration
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Incident data automatically pre-populated in service order form
  • Bidirectional linking maintained between incidents and service orders
  • Parts inventory integration with availability checking and reservation
  • Cost estimation includes parts, labor, and overhead calculations
  • Scheduling integration shows available time slots
  • Approval workflow routes based on cost thresholds
  • Status updates flow between incidents and service orders
  • Parts reservation and release functions correctly
  • Service order completion enables incident resolution
  • Modification tracking maintains audit trail
  • Reporting provides service order analytics
• Negative_Verification: No data loss during transfer, no orphaned service orders, no inventory errors

---

Test Case 12: Bulk Export and Reporting

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_012
• Title: Validate comprehensive bulk incident export functionality with filtering, formatting, and performance optimization
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Functional
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P3-Medium
• Execution Phase: Acceptance
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Database, MOD-Incidents, P3-Medium, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Low, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Low, Data-Export, Reporting, Performance-Testing

Business Context

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

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of export and reporting functionality
• Integration_Points: Database-Query-Engine, File-Generation-Service, Data-Formatting, Download-Service
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-Export, AX-Reporting-Engine
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Product
• Report_Categories: Data-Export-Tests, Reporting-Coverage, Performance-Validation
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: No
• Customer_Impact_Level: Low

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC17
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_005 (Performance Testing), AX05US02_TC_009 (Role Permissions)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 117+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: Database query engine, file generation service, data formatting engine, download service
• Performance_Baseline: Export generation <60 seconds for 1000 records, download initiation <5 seconds
• Data_Requirements: Large dataset of incidents (1000+ records), various incident types and statuses, date ranges

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Export functionality enabled, file generation service configured, sufficient database records
• User_Roles_Permissions: User with export permissions (Manager or above)
• Test_Data:
• • 1000+ incident records spanning multiple months
  • Various statuses: New, Investigating, Resolved, Closed
  • Multiple incident types, priorities, technicians
  • Different date ranges for filtering
• Prior_Test_Cases: Sufficient incident data created or imported

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to incidents list page as authorized user	Export functionality visible in toolbar or action menu	Login as manager_user1	Access verification
2	Verify export button visibility	"Export" button visible and enabled for users with appropriate permissions	N/A	Permission-based UI display
3	Apply date range filter before export	Date picker allows selection of custom range, filter applied to incident list	Date range: Last 30 days (July 18 - August 17, 2025)	Pre-export filtering
4	Apply multiple status filters	Multi-select dropdown allows combination of statuses	Status filter: New, Investigating, Resolved	Multi-criteria filtering
5	Apply priority filter	Priority filter options available and functional	Priority filter: High, Critical	Priority-based filtering
6	Apply incident type filter	Type filter shows all available incident types	Type filter: Low Pressure, No Water	Type-based filtering
7	Verify filtered results count	Status bar shows number of filtered incidents before export	Display: "Showing 245 of 1,247 incidents"	Filter result preview
8	Click "Export" button	Export options dialog displays with format choices	N/A	Export initiation
9	Select CSV export format	CSV option selected, additional CSV-specific options shown	Format: CSV, Delimiter: Comma	Format selection
10	Configure export columns	Column selection allows customization of exported fields	Include: ID, Status, Priority, Customer, Location, Date, Description	Column customization
11	Initiate CSV export	Export process starts with progress indicator displayed	N/A	Export processing
12	Monitor export progress	Progress bar shows completion percentage, estimated time remaining	N/A	Progress indication
13	Complete CSV export	File generation completes, download link provided	incidents_export_2025-08-17.csv	File completion
14	Download CSV file	File downloads successfully with correct filename and timestamp	N/A	File delivery
15	Verify CSV data completeness	All filtered incidents included in export, no missing records	Verify 245 records in CSV	Data completeness
16	Check CSV data accuracy	Sample records match system data exactly	Compare first 10 records	Data accuracy verification
17	Verify CSV formatting	Proper CSV format with headers, escaped special characters	Headers: "Incident ID", "Status", "Priority", etc.	Format validation
18	Test Excel (XLSX) export format	Select XLSX format, export generates proper Excel file	Format: Excel (.xlsx)	Alternative format testing
19	Verify Excel formatting	XLSX file opens correctly with proper formatting, column types	Date columns formatted as dates, numbers as numbers	Excel-specific formatting
20	Test large dataset export	Export 1000+ incidents, monitor performance and completion	No filters (full dataset)	Performance validation
21	Verify large export performance	Large export completes within 60 seconds, no timeouts	1000+ records export	Performance requirement
22	Test export with no results	Apply filters resulting in no matches, verify appropriate handling	Filter for non-existent status	Empty result handling
23	Verify empty export handling	System shows message: "No incidents match current filters"	N/A	No-data scenario
24	Test concurrent export requests	Multiple users can export simultaneously without conflicts	2+ users export at same time	Concurrency testing
25	Verify export audit logging	Export actions logged with user, timestamp, filter criteria	Audit log entry created	Activity tracking
26	Test export file retention	Exported files available for download for specified retention period	Files accessible for 24 hours	File management
27	Verify export security	Exported data only includes incidents user has permission to view	Export as limited user	Security validation
28	Test export cancellation	User can cancel long-running export, system handles gracefully	Cancel during large export	Cancellation handling
29	Generate summary report	Export includes summary statistics: total incidents, by status, by priority	Summary section in export	Statistical reporting
30	Verify export metadata	Export file includes metadata: generation date, user, filter criteria	Header with export details	Metadata inclusion

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Bulk export generates accurate data files in requested formats with proper filtering applied
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • All applied filters correctly limit exported data
  • Multiple export formats (CSV, Excel) function properly
  • Column customization allows user control over exported fields
  • Large dataset exports complete within performance requirements
  • Export progress indication provides user feedback
  • Data accuracy maintained between system and export files
  • File formatting appropriate for selected format
  • Concurrent exports don't interfere with each other
  • Export actions properly logged for audit purposes
  • Security permissions respected in exported data
  • Empty result scenarios handled appropriately
  • Export cancellation works without system issues
• Negative_Verification: No data corruption in exports, no unauthorized data access, no performance degradation

---

Test Case 13: SLA Compliance Tracking

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_013
• Title: Validate comprehensive SLA compliance tracking for response and resolution times with automated monitoring
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Functional
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Regression
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Database, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-High, SLA-Tracking, Performance-Metrics, Compliance-Testing

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: Medium
• Complexity_Level: High
• Expected_Execution_Time: 25 minutes
• Reproducibility_Score: High
• Data_Sensitivity: Medium
• Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of SLA tracking functionality
• Integration_Points: SLA-Engine, Timer-Service, Notification-Service, Reporting-Engine, Dashboard-Service
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Incidents-SLA, AX-SLA-Monitor
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
• Report_Categories: SLA-Compliance, Performance-Dashboard, Business-Metrics
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC18
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_011 (Dispatch Integration), AX05US02_TC_010 (Notifications)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
• Dependencies: SLA monitoring service, timer service, notification service, dashboard service, reporting engine
• Performance_Baseline: SLA calculation <100ms, breach detection <30 seconds, dashboard update <5 seconds
• Data_Requirements: SLA configuration by priority, historical SLA data, dashboard configuration

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: SLA rules configured by priority, monitoring service active, notification thresholds set
• User_Roles_Permissions: Manager access for SLA dashboards, supervisor notifications enabled
• Test_Data:
• • SLA Thresholds: Critical (15 min response, 2 hours resolution), High (30 min response, 4 hours resolution), Medium (2 hours response, 24 hours resolution), Low (4 hours response, 48 hours resolution)
  • Test incidents with known timestamps
  • Historical SLA data for trend analysis
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident creation and status management working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create Critical priority incident	SLA timer starts automatically with 15-minute response threshold	Priority: Critical, Type: No Water, Location: Downtown area	Critical SLA initiation
2	Verify SLA countdown display	Real-time countdown timer visible in incident details showing time remaining	SLA display: "14:45 remaining for response"	Visual SLA tracking
3	Monitor SLA timer accuracy	Timer counts down in real-time, updates every minute	N/A	Timer precision verification
4	Assign incident within SLA window	Assignment at 10 minutes, response SLA marked as "Met"	Assignment at 00:10:00	SLA compliance achievement
5	Verify SLA status indicators	Green indicator shows "Response SLA: Met", resolution timer now active	Response: Met (10 min), Resolution: Active (1:50 remaining)	Multiple SLA tracking
6	Track resolution SLA progression	Resolution timer continues from assignment, shows 2-hour deadline	Resolution SLA: 2 hours from assignment	Resolution tracking
7	Create High priority incident and let response SLA expire	No assignment after 30 minutes, response SLA marked as "Breached"	Priority: High, no assignment for 35 minutes	Breach detection
8	Verify SLA breach indicators	Red indicator shows "Response SLA: Breached", breach timestamp recorded	Response: Breached at 00:30:01	Breach status display
9	Verify automatic breach notifications	Supervisor receives breach alert within 30 seconds of SLA expiration	Notification to supervisor@utility.com	Escalation notification
10	Check breach notification content	Email includes incident details, breach type, duration, escalation instructions	"Response SLA breached by 5 minutes for INC-2025-089"	Notification content accuracy
11	Test SLA dashboard real-time updates	SLA compliance dashboard shows current metrics, updates in real-time	Dashboard: 85% response compliance, 92% resolution compliance	Real-time dashboard
12	Verify different priority SLA thresholds	Medium priority incident has 2-hour response, 24-hour resolution SLAs	Priority: Medium, Response: 2 hours, Resolution: 24 hours	Priority-specific SLAs
13	Test SLA pause functionality	Incident status "Awaiting Customer" pauses SLA timer	Status: "Awaiting Customer Response"	SLA pause conditions
14	Verify SLA resume after pause	Timer resumes when status changes back to active	Status: "Investigating" from "Awaiting Customer"	SLA resume functionality
15	Create Low priority incident	Verify 4-hour response, 48-hour resolution SLAs applied	Priority: Low, Response SLA: 4 hours	Low priority SLA
16	Test SLA reporting dashboard	Weekly/monthly SLA reports show compliance percentages by priority	Last 30 days: Critical 95%, High 87%, Medium 92%, Low 98%	Historical SLA reporting
17	Verify SLA trend analysis	Dashboard shows trends: improving, declining, stable	Trend: Response SLAs improving 3% month-over-month	Trend visualization
18	Test SLA exception handling	Weekend/holiday incidents follow modified SLA rules if configured	Create incident on Saturday, verify extended SLAs	Exception rule handling
19	Verify individual incident SLA history	Each incident shows complete SLA timeline with breach points	SLA History: Created, Response Target, Response Actual, Breach Status	Individual tracking
20	Test SLA performance by technician	Reports show individual technician SLA compliance rates	David Chen: 94% response compliance, 88% resolution compliance	Technician performance
21	Verify SLA compliance by incident type	Different incident types may have different baseline SLAs	Gas leaks: 5-minute response, Water outages: 15-minute response	Type-specific SLAs
22	Test SLA escalation workflows	Multiple breach thresholds trigger different escalation levels	30 min breach: Supervisor, 60 min breach: Manager	Escalation tiers
23	Verify SLA data export	SLA compliance data included in incident exports and reports	Export includes: SLA Target, Actual, Status, Breach Duration	SLA reporting integration
24	Test SLA configuration changes	Modified SLA thresholds apply to new incidents immediately	Change High priority response from 30 to 25 minutes	Configuration updates
25	Verify historical SLA data integrity	Past incidents maintain original SLA targets even after config changes	Historical incidents keep original 30-minute targets	Data consistency

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: SLA times tracked accurately with automatic breach detection and notifications
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Different priority levels have correctly configured SLA thresholds
  • Real-time countdown timers display accurately
  • SLA breach detection occurs within 30 seconds of expiration
  • Automated notifications sent to appropriate stakeholders upon breach
  • SLA dashboard provides real-time compliance metrics
  • SLA pause/resume functionality works for specific status conditions
  • Historical SLA reporting shows trends and performance analytics
  • Individual technician SLA performance tracked
  • SLA data properly included in exports and reports
  • Configuration changes apply appropriately to new incidents
  • Weekend/holiday exceptions handled if configured
• Negative_Verification: No incorrect SLA calculations, no missed breach notifications, no data corruption in SLA tracking

---

Test Case 14: Customer Communication Portal

Test Case Metadata

• Test Case ID: AX05US02_TC_014
• Title: Validate comprehensive customer communication portal for real-time status updates and self-service capabilities
• Created By: Prachi
• Created Date: August 17, 2025
• Version: 1.0

Classification

• Module/Feature: Incidents Management (AX05US02)
• Test Type: Integration
• Test Level: System
• Priority: P2-High
• Execution Phase: Acceptance
• Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support

• Tags: Happy-Path, Consumer, Integration-End-to-End, MOD-Incidents, P2-High, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Product, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Customer-Portal, Self-Service, Customer-Experience

Business Context

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

Coverage Tracking

• Feature_Coverage: 100% of customer portal functionality
• Integration_Points: Customer-Portal-System, Authentication-Service, Notification-Service, Incident-API, Survey-System
• Code_Module_Mapped: AX-Customer-Portal, AX-Incidents-Customer
• Requirement_Coverage: Complete
• Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

• Primary_Stakeholder: Product
• Report_Categories: Customer-Experience, Self-Service-Adoption, Customer-Satisfaction
• Trend_Tracking: Yes
• Executive_Visibility: Yes
• Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

• Related_Requirements: AX05US02-AC19
• Related_Bugs: N/A
• Related_Test_Cases: AX05US02_TC_010 (Notifications), AX05US02_TC_008 (Status History)

Test Environment

• Environment: Staging
• Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Safari 16+, Firefox 117+
• Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+, iOS 16+, Android 13+
• Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080, Mobile-375x667
• Dependencies: Customer portal system, authentication service, notification service, incident API, survey system
• Performance_Baseline: Portal load <3 seconds, status updates <5 seconds, mobile performance <4 seconds
• Data_Requirements: Customer accounts, incident data, notification preferences, survey templates

Prerequisites

• Setup_Requirements: Customer portal deployed, authentication integrated, notification services active, survey system configured
• User_Roles_Permissions: Customer account with portal access, incident tracking permissions
• Test_Data:
• • Customer: Anna Rivera, Phone: (555) 123-4567, Email: a.rivera@email.com
  • Incident: INC-2025-088, Status progression test data
  • Portal credentials: generated during incident creation
  • Notification preferences: email and SMS options
• Prior_Test_Cases: Incident creation with customer contact information

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Create incident with customer contact information	Customer receives portal access credentials via email/SMS	Customer: Anna Rivera, Phone: (555) 123-4567, Email: a.rivera@email.com	Portal account creation
2	Verify portal access notification	Email contains incident ID, portal URL, temporary access credentials	Incident ID: INC-2025-088, Portal URL, Access code	Credential delivery
3	Access customer portal using provided credentials	Portal login page accepts credentials, displays incident dashboard	Use provided access code or phone verification	Portal authentication
4	Verify portal dashboard layout	Clean, user-friendly interface showing incident status overview	N/A	User experience validation
5	View incident details in portal	Portal displays complete incident information: ID, description, location, current status, creation date	All incident details from creation	Information transparency
6	Verify real-time status display	Current incident status shown with timestamp of last update	Status: "New" with creation timestamp	Status visibility
7	Update incident status internally (as utility staff)	Portal reflects status change within 5 seconds without page refresh	Status change: New → Investigating	Real-time synchronization
8	Verify status change notification in portal	Portal shows status update with timestamp, brief description	"Status updated to Investigating at 2:45 PM"	Real-time updates
9	Add technician field notes (internal)	Customer sees appropriate public-facing notes in portal	Internal note: "Technician dispatched", Public note: "Technician en route, ETA 30 minutes"	Information filtering
10	Verify note filtering and display	Portal shows public notes only, no sensitive technical details	Customer sees: "Technician en route, ETA 30 minutes"	Content appropriateness
11	Upload field photos (internal)	Customer can view incident-related photos in portal	Upload: before-repair.jpg, after-repair.jpg	Visual documentation sharing
12	Test customer comment functionality	Customer can add comments/questions, staff receives notifications	Customer comment: "When will water pressure be fully restored?"	Two-way communication
13	Verify staff notification of customer comment	Relevant utility staff receive notification of customer inquiry	Notification to assigned technician and dispatcher	Communication escalation
14	Respond to customer comment (as staff)	Staff response appears in portal, customer receives notification	Staff response: "Pressure should be restored within 2 hours"	Response delivery
15	Test notification preference management	Customer can set communication preferences (email vs SMS)	Change preference from email to SMS	Preference management
16	Verify preference application	Subsequent notifications use updated preference method	Next notification via SMS to (555) 123-4567	Preference enforcement
17	Test mobile portal access	Portal works correctly on mobile devices with responsive design	Access via mobile browser	Mobile compatibility
18	Verify mobile functionality	All portal features accessible and usable on mobile interface	Touch-friendly interface, readable text	Mobile user experience
19	Update incident to resolved status	Portal shows resolution notification with completion details	Status: Resolved, Resolution: "Pressure regulator replaced"	Resolution communication
20	Test satisfaction survey presentation	Portal presents satisfaction survey after incident resolution	5-star rating system with comment field	Feedback collection
21	Complete satisfaction survey	Survey submission successful, feedback recorded in system	Rating: 4 stars, Comment: "Quick response, professional service"	Customer feedback capture
22	Verify survey data integration	Survey results linked to incident record for analysis	Survey data in incident history	Feedback integration
23	Test portal accessibility after resolution	Customer can still access portal to view completed incident details	Portal remains accessible for reference	Historical access
24	Test multiple incident tracking	Customer with multiple incidents can view all in single portal	Create second incident for same customer	Multi-incident management
25	Verify incident list display	Portal shows list of all customer incidents with status summary	Both incidents visible with current status	Incident portfolio view
26	Test portal security	Portal access limited to customer's own incidents only	Cannot access other customers' incidents	Security validation
27	Test session timeout	Portal session expires after configured timeout, requires re-authentication	Session timeout after 30 minutes of inactivity	Security timeout
28	Verify offline notification	Customer receives notification when portal updates while offline	Simulate offline, then reconnect	Offline handling
29	Test portal performance	Portal loads quickly, status updates appear promptly	Load time <3 seconds, updates <5 seconds	Performance validation
30	Generate portal usage analytics	Portal tracks customer engagement, page views, feature usage	Analytics: login frequency, time spent, features used	Usage monitoring

Verification Points

• Primary_Verification: Customer portal provides real-time incident status updates with appropriate information filtering
• Secondary_Verifications:
• • Portal authentication works with provided credentials
  • Real-time status updates appear without page refresh
  • Two-way communication functionality enables customer interaction
  • Information filtering shows only appropriate public details
  • Photo sharing allows visual documentation access
  • Notification preferences respected across all communications
  • Mobile interface provides full functionality with responsive design
  • Satisfaction survey integration captures customer feedback
  • Multiple incident tracking works for repeat customers
  • Portal security limits access to customer's own incidents
  • Session management enforces appropriate timeout policies
  • Performance meets user experience standards
  • Analytics track customer engagement and usage patterns
• Negative_Verification: No unauthorized data access, no sensitive information leakage, no portal security bypasses