Create Campaign - CRM05.1P1US5.1

Test Case 1: Display Business Objective Cards with Complete UI Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_001
Title: Verify business objective cards display correctly with proper layout, content, and interactive behavior
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Business Objective Selection
Test Type: UI/Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Planned-for-Automation

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Campaign-Creation, UI, MOD-ObjectiveSelection, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-UI, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Smoke-Test-Results, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-None, UI-Layout, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Marketing Manager, Campaign Specialist)
Revenue_Impact: High (Foundation for all campaign creation)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Onboarding/Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Primary test scenario)
Permission_Level: Full campaign creation access
Role_Restrictions: None for this feature
Multi_Role_Scenario: No (Single role validation)

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of objective display functionality
Integration_Points: None (Pure UI)
Code_Module_Mapped: UI-ObjectiveSelection
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Step 0 requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Module-Coverage, Smoke-Test-Results, User-Acceptance
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Step 0 - Business Objective Selection, AC-1 through AC-7
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_002 (Objective Selection), TC_003 (Goal Pre-population)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+, Edge Latest
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Campaign creation page access, user authentication
Performance_Baseline: <2 seconds page load
Data_Requirements: Active user session with campaign creation permissions

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Valid user account with Marketing Manager role
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager or Campaign Specialist access level
Test_Data: sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com (Manager credentials)
Prior_Test_Cases: User authentication and navigation successful

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Campaigns section in left sidebar	Campaigns dashboard displays with "Create Campaign" button visible	sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com	Verify navigation menu accessibility
2	Click "Create Campaign" button (top-right blue button)	Business objective page loads with title "What's your business objective?"	N/A	Check page transition and header display
3	Verify page subtitle display	Subtitle "Help us understand what you want to achieve so we can guide you through the best setup" appears	N/A	Validate explanatory text accuracy
4	Verify objective cards grid layout	6 cards arranged in 2x3 grid format with consistent spacing	N/A	Visual layout validation per AC-1
5	Verify "Launch a new product" card	Card shows chart icon, title, description "Announce and promote a new product, service, or feature to your audience", "Suggested: Promotional"	N/A	First card content validation per AC-2
6	Verify "Nurture leads and prospects" card	Card shows people icon, title, description "Build relationships with potential customers through educational content", "Suggested: Drip"	N/A	Second card validation with green background capability
7	Verify "Retain existing customers" card	Card shows heart icon, title, description "Keep current customers engaged and prevent churn", "Suggested: Reengagement"	N/A	Third card validation per AC-3
8	Verify "Promote an event or webinar" card	Card shows calendar icon, title, description "Drive attendance and engagement for upcoming events", "Suggested: Event"	N/A	Fourth card validation per AC-4
9	Verify "Share valuable content" card	Card shows document icon, title, description "Distribute educational content, newsletters, or industry insights", "Suggested: Newsletter"	N/A	Fifth card validation per AC-5
10	Verify "Something else" card	Card shows lightbulb icon, title, description "I have a different goal in mind", "Suggested: Promotional"	N/A	Sixth card validation with custom option
11	Test card hover states	Each card shows visual feedback on hover (subtle highlight or shadow)	N/A	Interactive state validation
12	Verify responsive behavior	Cards maintain readability and spacing on different screen sizes	Screen resize to 1024x768	Responsive design check

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All 6 objective cards display with correct icons, titles, descriptions, and suggestions in proper 2x3 grid layout
Secondary_Verifications: Page header accuracy, hover states functional, responsive behavior maintained
Negative_Verification: No broken images, missing content, or layout inconsistencies

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record actual card display, layout accuracy, content verification]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time taken vs expected 3 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs if issues discovered]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of card layout and content]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Build (Smoke test)
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes (UI element verification)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Authentication and navigation tests
Blocked_Tests: TC_002 (Objective selection depends on display)
Parallel_Tests: None (Sequential UI verification needed)
Sequential_Tests: TC_002, TC_003 must follow this test

Additional Information

Notes: Foundation test for entire campaign creation flow - critical for user experience
Edge_Cases: Different screen sizes, browser zoom levels, slow network conditions
Risk_Areas: UI framework changes, responsive design updates
Security_Considerations: No sensitive data displayed at this step

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Accessibility testing with screen readers and keyboard navigation
Type: Accessibility
Rationale: UI components must be accessible per WCAG guidelines
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Performance testing with slow network conditions
Type: Performance
Rationale: Objective cards must load within performance baseline even on slow connections
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 2: Business Objective Selection with State Management

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_002
Title: Verify single selection behavior, visual feedback, and state persistence for business objectives
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Business Objective Selection
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Smoke
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Campaign-Creation, Functional, MOD-ObjectiveSelection, P1-Critical, Phase-Smoke, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Regression-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-None, Selection-Logic, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Marketing Manager, Campaign Specialist)
Revenue_Impact: High (Critical path for campaign creation)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Primary validation)
Permission_Level: Full objective selection rights
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 4 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: None
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of selection logic and state management
Integration_Points: State persistence layer
Code_Module_Mapped: ObjectiveSelection-StateManager
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (AC-8, AC-9, AC-10)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, User-Acceptance, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: AC-8 (Single selection), AC-9 (Visual feedback), AC-10 (State persistence)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_001 (Display prerequisite), TC_003 (Goal pre-population)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+, Edge Latest
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: TC_001 passed, session management active
Performance_Baseline: <200ms selection response time
Data_Requirements: Valid session with objective display loaded

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Business objective cards displayed and interactive
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager access confirmed
Test_Data: emily.rodriguez@midwestpower.com (Alternative manager for variety)
Prior_Test_Cases: TC_001 must pass

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Click "Nurture leads and prospects" card	Card background changes to green, card border highlights, "Suggested: Drip" text appears below	N/A	Visual state change validation per AC-8
2	Verify other cards remain unselected	All other 5 cards maintain default appearance with no highlighting	N/A	Single selection enforcement check
3	Click "Launch a new product or feature" card	Previous selection clears, new card highlights with green background, "Suggested: Promotional" appears	N/A	Selection change behavior per AC-9
4	Verify previous card state cleared	"Nurture leads" card returns to default state, no green background	N/A	State clearing validation
5	Attempt to proceed without any selection	Click area outside cards, observe no navigation occurs	N/A	Required selection validation per BR-1
6	Select "Retain existing customers" objective	Card highlights, "Suggested: Reengagement" appears, selection state active	N/A	Third selection test
7	Navigate to different browser tab and return	Return to campaign creation, verify "Retain customers" still selected	Browser tab switch	Session state persistence
8	Perform browser refresh (Ctrl+R)	Page reloads, "Retain customers" selection maintained	F5/Ctrl+R	Page refresh persistence
9	Click "Something else" option	Card selects, "Suggested: Promotional" displays, custom option available	N/A	Custom objective handling
10	Verify selection accessibility	Use Tab navigation to reach selected card, verify focus state visible	Keyboard navigation	Accessibility compliance
11	Test rapid selection changes	Quickly click between 3 different objectives	Multiple rapid clicks	Performance under quick interaction
12	Select final objective and verify readiness	Choose "Nurture leads and prospects", confirm ready for next step	N/A	Pre-navigation validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Only one objective can be selected at a time with proper visual feedback and suggestion text
Secondary_Verifications: State persists across browser events, selection clearing works correctly
Negative_Verification: Cannot select multiple objectives, no navigation without selection

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record selection behavior, state persistence, visual feedback accuracy]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 4 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for selection or state issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of selection states and persistence]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Build (Critical path)
Maintenance_Effort: Low
Automation_Candidate: Yes (JavaScript interaction testing)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: TC_001 (Display must work first)
Blocked_Tests: TC_003 (Goal pre-population), all Step 1 tests
Parallel_Tests: None (State management requires sequential testing)
Sequential_Tests: Must precede all subsequent campaign creation tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for user workflow - selection determines entire campaign configuration path
Edge_Cases: Rapid clicking, browser events during selection, network interruptions
Risk_Areas: Session management changes, UI framework updates affecting state
Security_Considerations: Session data validation, state tampering prevention

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Selection state persistence across user session timeout and renewal
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users may leave selection active during session timeout
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Concurrent user testing - multiple users selecting objectives simultaneously
Type: Performance
Rationale: System must handle concurrent objective selections without interference
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 3: Multi-Role Objective Selection Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_003
Title: Verify business objective selection works correctly for both Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist roles
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Business Objective Selection
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Multi-Role, Campaign-Creation, MOD-ObjectiveSelection, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Integration-Testing, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-RoleManagement, Multi-Role, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Both user roles)
Revenue_Impact: High (Affects all user personas)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Multi-role)
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Both Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist
Permission_Level: Full objective selection for both roles
Role_Restrictions: None (Equal access per user story)
Multi_Role_Scenario: Yes (Testing both roles)

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 6 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of multi-role objective selection
Integration_Points: Role management system, authentication
Code_Module_Mapped: RoleBasedAccess-ObjectiveSelection
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (User role requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: User role descriptions, equal access requirements
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_001, TC_002 (Prerequisites), TC_045 (Role handoff scenarios)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Both role types available, authentication system active
Performance_Baseline: Same performance for both roles
Data_Requirements: Both Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist test accounts

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Both user role accounts configured and active
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist roles verified
Test_Data: sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com (Manager), alex.thompson@atlanticgrid.com (Specialist)
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic objective display and selection working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Login as Marketing Manager	Successful authentication, campaigns dashboard accessible	sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com	Manager role verification
2	Navigate to Create Campaign	Business objective page loads with all 6 options available	N/A	Manager access confirmation
3	Select "Launch a new product" objective	Selection successful, "Suggested: Promotional" appears, navigation enabled	N/A	Manager selection capability
4	Logout Marketing Manager	Clean session termination	N/A	Role switch preparation
5	Login as Campaign Specialist	Successful authentication, campaigns dashboard accessible	alex.thompson@atlanticgrid.com	Specialist role verification
6	Navigate to Create Campaign	Business objective page loads with identical 6 options	N/A	Specialist access identical to Manager
7	Select "Nurture leads and prospects"	Selection successful, "Suggested: Drip" appears, same functionality	N/A	Specialist selection capability
8	Verify all objectives available to Specialist	Test selection of all 6 objectives successfully	All objective types	Complete access verification
9	Compare functionality between roles	Both roles have identical selection behavior and options	N/A	Functional parity validation
10	Test objective state persistence for Specialist	Browser refresh maintains selection for Specialist role	F5/Ctrl+R	Specialist session management
11	Test performance parity	Selection response time identical for both roles	Response time measurement	Performance equality
12	Verify UI consistency	Interface appearance identical regardless of user role	Visual comparison	UI consistency check

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Both Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist have identical access and functionality for business objective selection
Secondary_Verifications: Performance parity, UI consistency, session management equal for both roles
Negative_Verification: No role-based restrictions or differences in objective selection

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record role access comparison, functionality parity, performance differences]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 6 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for role-based issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of both roles' access and functionality]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Role validation)
Maintenance_Effort: Medium (Role management dependency)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Role switching can be automated)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: TC_001, TC_002 (Basic functionality must work)
Blocked_Tests: Multi-role campaign creation tests
Parallel_Tests: Can run parallel role tests if needed
Sequential_Tests: Should precede role handoff tests

Additional Information

Notes: Validates equal access design decision from user story - both roles have full campaign creation access
Edge_Cases: Role permission changes during session, concurrent role access
Risk_Areas: Role management system changes, permission model updates
Security_Considerations: Role validation, session security for both user types

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Role switching during active campaign creation session
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users might switch roles mid-campaign creation
Priority: P3-Medium
Scenario_2: Concurrent campaign creation by same user with different roles
Type: Performance/Security
Rationale: System must handle same user having multiple role sessions
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 4: Campaign Name Field Comprehensive Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_004
Title: Verify campaign name field validation with boundary conditions, uniqueness checking, and character encoding
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Campaign Configuration
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Negative, Input-Validation, MOD-CampaignConfig, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Regression-Coverage, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Security-Validation, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Database, Validation-Rules, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Critical field for all campaigns)
Revenue_Impact: High (Invalid names cause campaign failures)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: Yes (Data validation compliance)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Primary test scenario)
Permission_Level: Full campaign naming rights
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No (Same validation for all roles)

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: Medium
Expected_Execution_Time: 8 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Medium (Campaign names may contain business info)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of campaign name validation logic
Integration_Points: Database uniqueness check, validation service
Code_Module_Mapped: InputValidation-CampaignName
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (BR-1, BR-2, BR-3)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Regression-Coverage, Security-Validation, API-Test-Results
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: BR-1 (3-100 characters), BR-2 (Uniqueness), BR-3 (Character validation)
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_003 (Goal pre-population), TC_005 (Campaign type integration)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+, Edge Latest
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Step 1 campaign configuration page, database connection
Performance_Baseline: <300ms validation response
Data_Requirements: Existing campaigns for uniqueness testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Campaign configuration step accessible, validation service active
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager access with campaign creation rights
Test_Data: jennifer.chen@southwestutil.com, existing campaigns: "Q4 Product Launch 2024", "Holiday Retargeting Campaign"
Prior_Test_Cases: Business objective selected and Step 1 accessible

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Step 1 with selected objective	Campaign Name field visible with placeholder "e.g., Spring Product Launch"	From TC_002 completion	Step transition verification
2	Leave campaign name field empty and attempt focus away	Red error message "Campaign name is required" appears below field	"" (empty string)	Required field validation per BR-1
3	Enter 2 characters in campaign name	Error message "Minimum 3 characters required" displays	"AB"	Below minimum boundary test
4	Enter exactly 3 characters	Field accepts input, error clears, green validation checkmark	"ABC"	Minimum boundary acceptance
5	Enter 50 characters (mid-range)	Field accepts input without error	"Q1 2025 Energy Efficiency Campaign for Commercial" (50 chars)	Mid-range validation
6	Enter exactly 100 characters	Field accepts input, no error, character counter shows 100/100	"A" repeated 100 times	Maximum boundary acceptance
7	Enter 101 characters	Error "Maximum 100 characters exceeded" appears, input truncated or rejected	"A" repeated 101 times	Above maximum boundary test
8	Enter existing campaign name	Error "Campaign name already exists. Please choose a different name."	"Q4 Product Launch 2024"	Uniqueness validation per BR-2
9	Enter valid unique campaign name	Field accepts, validation passes, ready for next field	"Q1 2025 Smart Grid Initiative"	Valid input acceptance
10	Test special characters	Field accepts alphanumeric and standard punctuation	"Q1-2025_Smart#Grid@Campaign!"	Special character handling
11	Test Unicode characters	Field handles international characters correctly	"Campaña de Energía 2025"	Unicode/international support
12	Test script injection attempt	Input sanitized, no script execution, security validation passes	"<script>alert('test')</script>"	Security validation per BR-3
13	Test extremely long paste operation	Field truncates to 100 characters, shows appropriate message	500 character string paste	Paste handling validation
14	Test name with only whitespace	Error "Campaign name cannot be only whitespace"	" " (spaces only)	Whitespace-only validation
15	Verify real-time character counter	Counter updates dynamically as user types	Progressive typing	Real-time feedback validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Campaign name validates 3-100 character requirement with proper error messaging and uniqueness checking
Secondary_Verifications: Special characters handled correctly, security validation prevents injection, real-time feedback functional
Negative_Verification: Empty field, duplicate names, excessive length, and malicious input properly rejected

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record validation responses, error messages, boundary behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 8 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for validation failures]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of validation messages and boundary testing]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Build (Critical validation)
Maintenance_Effort: Medium (Database dependency for uniqueness)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Input validation ideal for automation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: TC_002 (Objective selection), Step 1 access
Blocked_Tests: TC_005 (Campaign type), all subsequent configuration tests
Parallel_Tests: Other Step 1 field validations
Sequential_Tests: Must complete before campaign goal testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical validation point - invalid names cause downstream failures in campaign execution
Edge_Cases: Concurrent name creation, database timeout during uniqueness check, special character encoding variations
Risk_Areas: Database connection issues, validation service failures, character encoding problems
Security_Considerations: XSS prevention, SQL injection protection, input sanitization

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Campaign name validation during high database load
Type: Performance
Rationale: Uniqueness check may timeout under load, need graceful handling
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Multi-language campaign name support for international utility companies
Type: Integration
Rationale: B2B utility SaaS may serve international markets
Priority: P3-Medium
Scenario_3: Campaign name auto-save during typing with validation feedback
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users expect immediate feedback without losing progress
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 5: All Campaign Types Validation and Configuration

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_005
Title: Verify all 11 campaign types display correctly with proper validation, information panels, and type-specific configurations
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Campaign Configuration
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Campaign-Types, Configuration, MOD-CampaignConfig, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Regression-Coverage, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Templates, All-Campaign-Types, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (All campaign types available to all users)
Revenue_Impact: High (Campaign type determines execution strategy and ROI)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: Yes (Email compliance varies by type)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Detailed configuration role)
Permission_Level: Full access to all campaign types
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No (Same types for all roles)

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of all campaign types and their configurations
Integration_Points: Template system, validation service, email compliance
Code_Module_Mapped: CampaignTypes-Configuration
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (All 11 campaign types from user story)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Campaign Type options (11 types), Information panels, Type-specific validation
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_004 (Campaign name), TC_006 (Funnel target), TC_011 (Template integration)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+, Edge Latest
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Campaign configuration step, template service, validation engine
Performance_Baseline: <500ms type selection and info panel display
Data_Requirements: All campaign type configurations available

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Campaign name entered successfully, Step 1 configuration accessible
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist access with full type selection rights
Test_Data: david.kim@pacificenergy.com, valid campaign name "Energy Efficiency Program 2025"
Prior_Test_Cases: TC_004 (Campaign name validation passed)

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Campaign Type dropdown	Dropdown shows all 11 campaign types with icons	N/A	Verify complete type availability
2	Select "Transactional Email"	Type selects, info panel shows "Automated responses to user actions", examples include "Order confirmations, Password resets, Account notifications"	Transactional type	First campaign type validation
3	Verify transactional compliance info	Info panel displays compliance note "Must comply with transactional email regulations"	N/A	Compliance requirements display
4	Select "Promotional Email"	Info updates: "Promote a product, service, or offer", examples: "Flash sales, Product launches, Discount codes, Seasonal offers"	Promotional type	Second type with marketing focus
5	Select "Welcome Email"	Info updates: "Onboard new subscribers or customers", examples: "New subscriber welcome, Account setup guidance, Getting started tips"	Welcome type	Onboarding campaign type
6	Select "Newsletter Email"	Info updates: "Regular content distribution", examples: "Monthly newsletters, Industry updates, Company news, Educational content"	Newsletter type	Content distribution type
7	Select "Drip Campaign Email"	Info updates: "Automated sequence over time", examples: "Lead nurturing series, Educational courses, Customer onboarding sequences"	Drip type	Automated sequence type
8	Select "Re-engagement Email"	Info updates: "Win back inactive subscribers", examples: "Win-back campaigns, Reactivation offers, Feedback requests"	Re-engagement type	Customer retention focus
9	Select "Abandoned Cart Emails"	Info updates: "Recover incomplete purchases", examples: "Cart reminder, Incentive offers, Product recommendations"	Abandoned cart type	E-commerce specific type
10	Select "Educational Email"	Info updates: "Share knowledge and expertise", examples: "How-to guides, Best practices, Industry insights, Training content"	Educational type	Knowledge sharing focus
11	Select "Survey and Feedback Email"	Info updates: "Collect customer opinions", examples: "NPS surveys, Product feedback, User experience surveys"	Survey type	Feedback collection type
12	Select "Event Emails"	Info updates: "Promote and manage events", examples: "Event invitations, Registration confirmations, Reminders, Follow-ups"	Event type	Event management focus
13	Select "Loyalty and Reward Email"	Info updates: "Appreciate and retain customers", examples: "Loyalty programs, Reward notifications, VIP offers, Anniversary messages"	Loyalty type	Customer loyalty focus
14	Verify information panel responsiveness	Each type selection updates info panel within 200ms	All types tested	Performance validation
15	Test type change impact on other fields	Verify funnel target suggestions update based on campaign type	Different type combinations	Integration with other fields
16	Verify type-specific template availability	Templates filter based on selected campaign type	Template integration test	Template system integration
17	Test type selection persistence	Browser refresh maintains selected campaign type	F5/Ctrl+R	State persistence validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All 11 campaign types display with accurate information panels, examples, and compliance notes
Secondary_Verifications: Type selection updates related fields, performance within baseline, state persistence
Negative_Verification: No missing types, incorrect information, or performance issues

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record all 11 types, information accuracy, performance measurements]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 15 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for type configuration issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of all campaign types and information panels]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Complete type validation)
Maintenance_Effort: Medium (Template integration dependency)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Type selection and validation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: TC_004 (Campaign name must be set)
Blocked_Tests: Template selection tests, funnel target validation
Parallel_Tests: Funnel target dropdown testing
Sequential_Tests: Must complete before template integration tests

Additional Information

Notes: Comprehensive campaign type validation critical for B2B utility SaaS - different types have different compliance and execution requirements
Edge_Cases: Type switching during campaign creation, compliance requirements changing, template availability by type
Risk_Areas: Compliance regulation changes, template system integration failures
Security_Considerations: Type-specific data handling, compliance requirements per campaign type

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Campaign type compliance validation for different geographical regions
Type: Compliance/Regulatory
Rationale: B2B utility companies may operate across regions with different email regulations
Priority: P1-Critical
Scenario_2: Campaign type performance impact on system resources
Type: Performance
Rationale: Different campaign types may have different resource requirements
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_3: Campaign type migration - converting existing campaigns between types
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users may need to change campaign types after creation
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 6: Draft Management - Auto-Save Functionality

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_006
Title: Verify campaign draft auto-save functionality with 30-second intervals, browser crash recovery, and draft persistence
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Draft Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Edge-Case, Draft-Management, MOD-DraftManagement, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Storage, Auto-Save, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Critical data preservation feature)
Revenue_Impact: High (Prevents data loss and user frustration)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Data preservation)
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes (User experience impact)

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Data loss prevention critical for managers)
Permission_Level: Full draft creation and management
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No (Same auto-save for all roles)

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium (Browser crash scenarios)
Data_Sensitivity: High (Campaign data preservation)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of auto-save and recovery functionality
Integration_Points: Storage service, session management, browser storage APIs
Code_Module_Mapped: DraftManagement-AutoSave
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (30-second auto-save requirement)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: QA
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, User-Acceptance, Performance-Metrics, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Auto-save every 30 seconds, Browser crash recovery, Draft state persistence
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_004 (Campaign creation), TC_043 (Draft resume), TC_044 (Multiple drafts)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+ (crash testing)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Draft storage service, session management, browser local storage
Performance_Baseline: Auto-save within 2 seconds, recovery within 5 seconds
Data_Requirements: Clean session for draft creation testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Campaign creation flow accessible, storage service active
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager with draft creation permissions
Test_Data: mike.rodriguez@midwestpower.com, campaign data for auto-save testing
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic campaign configuration working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Start new campaign creation	Clean campaign creation state, no existing drafts	N/A	Initial state establishment
2	Enter campaign name and wait 30 seconds	Auto-save indicator appears, "Draft saved" notification	"Q2 2025 Smart Meter Campaign"	30-second auto-save trigger
3	Verify draft save indicator	Visual confirmation of save status, timestamp updated	N/A	Auto-save feedback validation
4	Continue to Step 2, select audience segments	Draft continues auto-saving every 30 seconds	Enterprise Prospects + Newsletter Subscribers	Multi-step auto-save
5	Monitor auto-save timing	Verify saves occur at 30-second intervals ±5 seconds	Timer monitoring	Auto-save interval accuracy
6	Navigate away from page deliberately	Warning dialog "You have unsaved changes" appears	Browser navigation	Unsaved changes detection
7	Confirm navigation away	Draft saves before page exit	N/A	Exit save behavior
8	Return to campaign creation	"Resume Draft" option available with last saved data	N/A	Draft recovery availability
9	Resume draft and verify data	All previously entered data restored accurately	Previous campaign data	Data restoration accuracy
10	Simulate browser crash (force close)	Browser terminates without warning	Browser force close	Crash scenario simulation
11	Reopen browser and login	System detects interrupted session	Same user credentials	Crash detection
12	Navigate to campaign creation	"Recover Draft" notification with creation timestamp	N/A	Crash recovery notification
13	Accept draft recovery	All data from before crash restored	Pre-crash campaign data	Full crash recovery
14	Test network disconnection during save	Auto-save queues for retry when connection restored	Network disconnect simulation	Network resilience
15	Verify queued save execution	Pending saves execute when network restored	N/A	Queue processing validation
16	Test multiple tabs with same draft	Draft syncs across tabs or warns of conflict	Multiple browser tabs	Multi-tab draft handling

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Auto-save occurs every 30 seconds with reliable crash recovery and data restoration
Secondary_Verifications: Save indicators work correctly, network interruptions handled gracefully
Negative_Verification: No data loss during crashes, network issues, or browser events

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record auto-save timing, recovery success, data accuracy]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 12 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for draft management failures]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of auto-save behavior and recovery]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Build (Critical data protection)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Browser and storage dependency)
Automation_Candidate: Partial (Auto-save timing can be automated, crash scenarios manual)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic campaign creation flow
Blocked_Tests: TC_043 (Draft resume scenarios), TC_044 (Multiple draft management)
Parallel_Tests: None (Sequential testing required for timing)
Sequential_Tests: Must be followed by draft management tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for user experience - prevents data loss that would cause user frustration and campaign creation abandonment
Edge_Cases: Rapid data entry exceeding auto-save intervals, storage quota exceeded, concurrent user sessions
Risk_Areas: Browser storage limitations, network connectivity issues, session timeout during draft save
Security_Considerations: Draft data encryption, session security, unauthorized draft access prevention

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Draft data size limits and storage quota management
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Large campaigns with complex workflows may exceed storage limits
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Draft data encryption and security validation
Type: Security
Rationale: Campaign drafts may contain sensitive business information
Priority: P1-Critical
Scenario_3: Cross-device draft synchronization for same user account
Type: Integration
Rationale: Users may start campaigns on one device and continue on another
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 7: Multi-Role Campaign Handoff - Manager to Specialist

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_007
Title: Verify Marketing Manager can create campaign draft and Campaign Specialist can complete and launch it with proper handoff workflow
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Multi-Role Workflow
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Acceptance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Multi-Role, Handoff-Workflow, MOD-MultiRole, P1-Critical, Phase-Acceptance, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-RoleManagement, Role-Handoff, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Common enterprise workflow pattern)
Revenue_Impact: High (Enables collaborative campaign creation)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Collaborative-Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: Yes (Audit trail for role changes)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Both Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist
Permission_Level: Full access for both roles with handoff capability
Role_Restrictions: None (Equal access per user story)
Multi_Role_Scenario: Yes (Primary focus of this test)

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 18 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Campaign data across roles)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of multi-role handoff workflow
Integration_Points: Role management, draft system, audit logging, notification system
Code_Module_Mapped: MultiRole-CampaignHandoff
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Multi-role collaboration requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Multi-role access, Draft handoff capability, Audit trail requirements
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_006 (Draft management), TC_003 (Role validation), TC_045 (Specialist to Manager handoff)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (multiple sessions)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Both role types configured, draft system active, notification system
Performance_Baseline: Role transition within 10 seconds
Data_Requirements: Both Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist accounts active

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Both user roles configured with proper permissions, draft system functional
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager and Campaign Specialist with campaign creation and editing rights
Test_Data: sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com (Manager), emily.davis@mountainstates.com (Specialist)
Prior_Test_Cases: Role validation tests, draft management working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Login as Marketing Manager	Successful authentication, campaigns dashboard accessible	sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com	Manager session establishment
2	Create new campaign with objective selection	Select "Launch a new product" objective, proceed to configuration	Product launch objective	Manager initiates campaign
3	Configure campaign details	Enter name "Q3 2025 Solar Panel Program", select promotional type, add description	Detailed campaign config	Manager adds strategic elements
4	Select target audience segments	Choose Enterprise Prospects and Product Trial Users, verify 401 total contacts	Mixed audience selection	Manager defines target market
5	Save campaign as draft with assignment	Click "Save as Draft", option to assign to Campaign Specialist appears	N/A	Draft save with assignment option
6	Assign draft to Campaign Specialist	Select emily.davis@mountainstates.com from dropdown, add note "Please complete workflow and schedule"	Assignment to specialist	Manager assigns with instructions
7	Verify assignment confirmation	"Draft assigned successfully" message, specialist notification sent	N/A	Assignment confirmation
8	Logout Marketing Manager	Clean session termination	N/A	Role transition preparation
9	Login as Campaign Specialist	Successful authentication, notification of assigned draft visible	emily.davis@mountainstates.com	Specialist session establishment
10	Access assigned draft	Draft appears in "Assigned to Me" section with manager's note	N/A	Specialist sees assignment
11	Resume assigned campaign	All manager's configuration data intact and editable	Previous configuration data	Specialist accesses manager's work
12	Complete workflow configuration	Select Lead Nurturing template, customize with additional nodes	10-node workflow	Specialist adds tactical execution
13	Configure campaign schedule	Set start date, budget $15,000, timezone UTC, optimization settings	Detailed scheduling	Specialist finalizes execution details
14	Review complete campaign	All sections show manager's strategy plus specialist's execution details	Combined configuration	Collaborative campaign review
15	Launch campaign with audit trail	Campaign launches successfully, audit log shows both roles' contributions	N/A	Successful collaborative launch
16	Verify manager notification	Manager receives notification of campaign launch by specialist	Notification to manager	Completion feedback to manager
17	Verify audit trail completeness	System logs show manager creation, specialist completion, with timestamps and user IDs	Audit trail verification	Complete collaboration record

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Marketing Manager can create and assign draft, Campaign Specialist can complete and launch with full data preservation
Secondary_Verifications: Assignment notifications work, audit trail complete, role permissions respected
Negative_Verification: No data loss during handoff, no unauthorized access, complete audit trail

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record handoff success, data preservation, notification delivery, audit trail completeness]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 18 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for handoff workflow issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of role transitions, data preservation, notifications, audit trail]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Multi-role workflow validation)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Multiple role and system dependencies)
Automation_Candidate: Partial (Role switching manual, data verification can be automated)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: TC_003 (Role validation), TC_006 (Draft management)
Blocked_Tests: TC_045 (Reverse handoff), advanced collaboration tests
Parallel_Tests: None (Sequential role interaction required)
Sequential_Tests: Should be followed by specialist-to-manager handoff test

Additional Information

Notes: Represents common enterprise workflow where managers set strategy and specialists execute - critical for B2B utility SaaS adoption
Edge_Cases: Role permission changes during handoff, concurrent editing, assignment to unavailable users
Risk_Areas: Role management system changes, notification system failures, draft data corruption during handoff
Security_Considerations: Role-based access control, audit trail integrity, data security during role transitions

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Campaign handoff with rejection and feedback loop
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Specialist may need to reject assignment and provide feedback to manager
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Multiple specialists assigned to same campaign draft
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Manager may want multiple specialists to collaborate on different aspects
Priority: P3-Medium
Scenario_3: Handoff timeout and automatic reassignment
Type: Business Rule
Rationale: Assignments may need timeout handling if specialist unavailable
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 8: Complex Multi-Segment Duplicate Contact Analysis

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_008
Title: Verify comprehensive duplicate contact detection across multiple segments with partial duplicates and performance optimization
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Audience Selection
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Negative, Complex-Duplicates, MOD-AudienceSelection, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-CRM, Duplicate-Detection, Happy-Path

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Critical for accurate audience targeting)
Revenue_Impact: High (Duplicate contacts affect campaign ROI and compliance)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Audience optimization)
Compliance_Required: Yes (Anti-spam compliance requires accurate contact counts)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Detailed audience management)
Permission_Level: Full audience selection and analysis
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 20 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Contact data analysis)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of duplicate detection algorithms and edge cases
Integration_Points: CRM database, duplicate detection service, performance optimization
Code_Module_Mapped: DuplicateDetection-AudienceAnalysis
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Smart deduplication requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Quality-Dashboard, Performance-Metrics, API-Test-Results, Module-Coverage
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Smart deduplication, Contact overlap analysis, Performance optimization
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_007 (Basic duplicate detection), TC_009 (Large dataset performance)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: CRM database with complex contact data, duplicate detection service
Performance_Baseline: Duplicate analysis complete within 3 seconds for up to 10,000 contacts
Data_Requirements: Multi-segment contact database with known duplicates and partial matches

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Complex contact database loaded, duplicate detection service optimized
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with full audience analysis rights
Test_Data: alex.thompson@atlanticgrid.com, segments with known duplicate patterns
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic audience selection working, segment data loaded

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Step 2 with complex segments available	6 segments available: Enterprise (245), Newsletter (1250), Events (89), Trials (156), Premium (324), International (567)	Complex segment setup	Multi-segment availability
2	Select Enterprise Prospects and Newsletter Subscribers	Total shows 1495 contacts, duplicate contacts button appears	Enterprise + Newsletter	Basic overlap detection
3	Click duplicate contacts analysis	Modal shows: Total 1495, Duplicates 58, Unique Recipients 1437	N/A	Duplicate count accuracy
4	Verify duplicate contact details	List shows contacts with: Same email exact matches (45), Same email different names (8), Same phone different email (5)	Detailed duplicate breakdown	Partial duplicate categorization
5	Add Event Attendees segment	Total updates to 1584, duplicate analysis recalculates showing 73 duplicates, 1511 unique	Add Events segment	Real-time duplicate recalculation
6	Add Product Trial Users segment	Total 1740, duplicates increase to 94, unique recipients 1646	Add Trials segment	Complex multi-segment analysis
7	Verify partial duplicate handling	Modal shows detailed breakdown: Exact matches (67), Name variations (18), Phone-only matches (9)	Partial match analysis	Advanced duplicate categorization
8	Test performance with all segments	Select all 6 segments, duplicate analysis completes within 3 seconds	All segments	Performance benchmark
9	Verify large dataset duplicate analysis	Total 2631 contacts, 156 duplicates identified, 2475 unique recipients	Full dataset	Large-scale duplicate detection
10	Test duplicate contact drill-down	Click individual duplicate entry, shows all segment memberships for that contact	Specific duplicate contact	Contact detail analysis
11	Verify deduplication preview	Preview shows final email send count matches unique recipient count	N/A	Send count accuracy
12	Test duplicate resolution options	System automatically selects most recent contact version for duplicates	Duplicate resolution	Automatic conflict resolution
13	Verify geographic impact of deduplication	Geographic distribution updates to reflect unique contact locations	Geographic analysis	Location accuracy post-deduplication
14	Test edge case: Contact in all segments	Identify contact appearing in 5+ segments, verify counted only once	Multi-segment contact	Maximum overlap scenario
15	Performance test: Rapid segment changes	Quickly select/deselect segments, verify duplicate analysis keeps up	Rapid UI interaction	Performance under load
16	Verify duplicate analysis API response	Backend API returns consistent duplicate data within 500ms	API performance check	API-level validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Complex duplicate detection accurately identifies exact matches, partial duplicates, and multi-segment overlaps with real-time performance
Secondary_Verifications: Performance within baseline, geographic distribution accuracy, API response consistency
Negative_Verification: No false positives in duplicate detection, no missed duplicates, no performance degradation

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record duplicate counts, performance measurements, accuracy validation]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 20 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for duplicate detection issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Evidence of duplicate analysis, performance metrics, API responses]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Build (Critical accuracy validation)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Complex algorithm and data dependency)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Duplicate detection algorithms ideal for automation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic audience selection, segment data loading
Blocked_Tests: Campaign launch tests, email sending validation
Parallel_Tests: Geographic distribution testing
Sequential_Tests: Must complete before campaign creation finalization

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for anti-spam compliance and campaign ROI - accurate deduplication prevents user fatigue and regulatory issues
Edge_Cases: Contacts with multiple email addresses, international character variations in names, phone number format differences
Risk_Areas: Algorithm performance with large datasets, accuracy with fuzzy matching, international contact data variations
Security_Considerations: Contact data privacy, deduplication algorithm security, performance monitoring

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: International contact deduplication with character encoding variations
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: B2B utility companies may have international contacts with name/address variations
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Real-time duplicate detection during contact data imports
Type: Integration
Rationale: New contacts added during campaign creation should be included in duplicate analysis
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_3: Duplicate contact merge and data consolidation options
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Users may want to merge duplicate contacts rather than just deduplicate for sending
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 9: Large Dataset Performance and Scalability

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_009
Title: Verify audience selection and duplicate detection performance with large datasets up to 100,000+ contacts per segment
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Audience Selection Performance
Test Type: Performance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Performance, Large-Dataset, Scalability, MOD-AudienceSelection, P1-Critical, Phase-Performance, Type-Performance, Platform-Web, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Engineering, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-API-Test-Results, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-CRM, Performance-Testing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: Enterprise (Large utility companies with extensive contact databases)
Revenue_Impact: High (Performance issues block campaign creation for enterprise clients)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Enterprise scale)
Compliance_Required: Yes (Performance SLAs for enterprise clients)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Handles enterprise-scale campaigns)
Permission_Level: Full access to large datasets
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 25 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Large contact datasets)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of large dataset handling and performance optimization
Integration_Points: CRM database, caching layer, performance monitoring
Code_Module_Mapped: Performance-AudienceSelection
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Enterprise scalability requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Enterprise scalability, Performance SLAs, Large dataset handling
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_008 (Duplicate detection), TC_032 (Concurrent users)

Test Environment

Environment: Production-like with large datasets
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Large contact database (100K+ contacts per segment), performance monitoring tools
Performance_Baseline: Segment loading <5 seconds, duplicate analysis <10 seconds
Data_Requirements: Enterprise-scale contact database with performance test data

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Large dataset environment, performance monitoring active
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with enterprise dataset access
Test_Data: emily.davis@mountainstates.com, enterprise segments with 50K+ contacts each
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic audience selection functional

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Load Step 2 with enterprise segments	Page loads within 5 seconds, 6 segments display with contact counts 50K+ each	Enterprise segment data	Initial load performance
2	Select first large segment (50K contacts)	Segment selects within 2 seconds, total audience updates to 50,000	Enterprise Prospects: 52,347 contacts	Single large segment performance
3	Add second large segment (75K contacts)	Real-time calculation completes within 3 seconds, total shows 127,347	Corporate Customers: 75,892 contacts	Dual segment calculation
4	Monitor memory usage during selection	Browser memory usage remains under 2GB, no memory leaks	Performance monitoring	Resource usage validation
5	Add third large segment (60K contacts)	Calculation within 4 seconds, total updates to 187,347, system responsive	Industrial Clients: 60,445 contacts	Triple segment performance
6	Trigger duplicate analysis on large dataset	Duplicate detection completes within 10 seconds, shows analysis results	187K+ total contacts	Large-scale duplicate detection
7	Verify duplicate analysis accuracy	System identifies duplicates across segments, provides detailed breakdown	Expected ~5-8% duplication rate	Accuracy at scale
8	Test geographic distribution with large data	Geographic chart renders within 5 seconds, accurately shows distribution	Global distribution	Geographic performance
9	Add fourth large segment (90K contacts)	System handles 270K+ contacts, performance degrades <20%	Global Enterprise: 89,567 contacts	Maximum load testing
10	Monitor API response times	All API calls remain under 1 second response time	API monitoring	Backend performance
11	Test rapid segment selection changes	Quick select/deselect of large segments maintains responsiveness	Rapid UI interaction	Stress testing
12	Verify pagination for duplicate list	Large duplicate lists paginate properly, load within 2 seconds per page	Paginated duplicate results	UI scalability
13	Test browser refresh with large selection	Page reloads and restores large segment selection within 8 seconds	Browser refresh	State restoration performance
14	Simulate concurrent large dataset access	Multiple users accessing large datasets simultaneously	Concurrent user simulation	Multi-user performance
15	Verify performance degradation gracefully	System provides feedback when approaching limits, suggests optimization	Near-limit conditions	Graceful degradation
16	Test dataset cleanup and reset	Reset to no selection performs quickly, memory usage returns to baseline	Reset operation	Cleanup performance

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: System handles enterprise-scale datasets (100K+ contacts per segment) within performance baselines without degradation
Secondary_Verifications: Memory usage controlled, API performance maintained, UI responsiveness preserved
Negative_Verification: No system crashes, memory leaks, or unacceptable performance degradation

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record performance measurements, memory usage, response times]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 25 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for performance issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Performance metrics, memory usage graphs, response time measurements]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly (Performance regression detection)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Large dataset maintenance)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Performance metrics collection automated)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Large dataset availability, performance monitoring setup
Blocked_Tests: Enterprise campaign creation, production deployment
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other performance tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede enterprise user acceptance testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for enterprise B2B utility SaaS adoption - large utility companies have extensive contact databases requiring high performance
Edge_Cases: Dataset growth during testing, network latency impact, browser performance variations
Risk_Areas: Database query optimization, caching strategy effectiveness, memory management
Security_Considerations: Large dataset access logging, performance monitoring data privacy

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Performance impact of real-time contact data updates during large dataset selection
Type: Performance
Rationale: Enterprise contacts may be updated frequently, affecting selection performance
Priority: P1-Critical
Scenario_2: Network bandwidth impact on large dataset loading for remote users
Type: Performance
Rationale: Enterprise users may access system from various network conditions
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_3: Database connection pooling efficiency under large dataset queries
Type: Performance
Rationale: Multiple concurrent large dataset requests may overwhelm database connections
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 10: Workflow Node Limits and Performance Testing

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_010
Title: Verify custom workflow builder handles up to 100 nodes with performance testing and graceful degradation at limits
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Workflow Builder
Test Type: Performance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Performance, Workflow-Limits, Node-Testing, MOD-WorkflowBuilder, P1-Critical, Phase-Performance, Type-Performance, Platform-Web, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Engineering, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-API-Test-Results, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-WorkflowEngine, Node-Limits

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Complex workflows needed by advanced users)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Advanced workflow capability differentiates product)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Advanced-Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes (Performance impact)

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Advanced workflow creation)
Permission_Level: Full workflow builder access
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 30 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: Low
Failure_Impact: High

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of workflow node limits and performance characteristics
Integration_Points: Workflow engine, canvas rendering, node processing
Code_Module_Mapped: WorkflowBuilder-Performance
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Node limit boundary testing)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Performance-Metrics, Engineering, Quality-Dashboard, API-Test-Results
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Workflow node limits, Performance under load, Canvas scalability
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_013 (Workflow builder interface), TC_014 (Node configuration)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging with performance monitoring
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (high-performance browser)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11 with 16GB+ RAM
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Workflow engine, high-performance environment, monitoring tools
Performance_Baseline: <5 seconds for 50 nodes, <15 seconds for 100 nodes
Data_Requirements: Clean workflow environment for performance testing

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: High-performance test environment, workflow builder accessible
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with full workflow creation rights
Test_Data: david.kim@pacificenergy.com, clean browser session for performance testing
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic workflow builder functionality working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Access workflow builder with clean canvas	Canvas loads within 2 seconds, all node types available	N/A	Baseline performance establishment
2	Add 10 nodes rapidly	Canvas remains responsive, nodes render smoothly	Mixed node types	Initial performance check
3	Connect all 10 nodes with workflow paths	Connections draw smoothly, no lag in canvas interaction	Sequential connections	Connection performance
4	Add 20 more nodes (total 30)	Canvas performance maintained, zoom/pan responsive	Additional mixed nodes	Mid-scale performance
5	Monitor memory usage at 30 nodes	Browser memory usage under 1GB, no memory leaks detected	Performance monitoring	Resource usage tracking
6	Add 20 more nodes (total 50)	Canvas zoom may be required, performance within 5-second baseline	Node addition to 50	50-node performance target
7	Test canvas navigation at 50 nodes	Zoom, pan, and selection tools remain responsive	Canvas interaction	Navigation performance
8	Add complex connections between 50 nodes	Connection creation completes within 3 seconds each	Complex routing	Connection complexity
9	Add 25 more nodes (total 75)	Performance degrades but remains usable, <10 seconds for operations	Addition to 75 nodes	High-scale performance
10	Test node configuration at 75 nodes	Node property panels open within 2 seconds	Node configuration	Configuration performance
11	Add final 25 nodes (total 100)	System reaches 100-node limit, performance at 15-second baseline	Maximum nodes	Limit boundary testing
12	Verify 100-node limit enforcement	System prevents adding 101st node, shows "Maximum 100 nodes reached"	Attempt 101st node	Limit enforcement
13	Test save performance at 100 nodes	Workflow saves within 10 seconds, no data loss	Save operation	Save performance at limit
14	Test canvas performance at maximum	Canvas remains functional but may require user patience	Full canvas interaction	Maximum load usability
15	Monitor system performance degradation	Performance degrades gracefully, no crashes or hangs	Performance monitoring	Graceful degradation
16	Test workflow execution simulation	100-node workflow can be validated and simulated	Execution test	Execution feasibility
17	Reset canvas and verify recovery	Canvas resets quickly, memory usage returns to baseline	Reset operation	Recovery performance

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Workflow builder handles up to 100 nodes with graceful performance degradation and enforced limits
Secondary_Verifications: Memory usage controlled, save/load performance acceptable, canvas navigation functional
Negative_Verification: No crashes at node limits, no memory leaks, no data corruption

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record node counts, performance measurements, memory usage, degradation behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 30 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for performance or limit issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Performance graphs, memory usage charts, 100-node workflow screenshots]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Performance regression detection)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Performance environment dependency)
Automation_Candidate: Partial (Node addition can be automated, performance evaluation manual)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic workflow builder functionality
Blocked_Tests: Complex workflow execution, enterprise workflow scenarios
Parallel_Tests: Other performance tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede workflow execution performance tests

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for advanced users requiring complex workflows - establishes system limits and performance expectations
Edge_Cases: Rapid node addition, complex connection patterns, browser memory limitations
Risk_Areas: Canvas rendering performance, workflow engine scalability, browser limitations
Security_Considerations: Resource consumption monitoring, DOS prevention through node limits

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Node performance degradation at different node type combinations
Type: Performance
Rationale: Different node types may have varying performance impacts
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Collaborative editing performance with large workflows
Type: Performance
Rationale: Multiple users editing large workflows simultaneously
Priority: P3-Medium
Scenario_3: Workflow import/export performance for 100-node workflows
Type: Performance
Rationale: Large workflow data transfer and processing
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 11: All Campaign Template Types Comprehensive Testing

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_011
Title: Verify all campaign templates from user story load correctly with accurate node counts, workflow previews, and type-specific configurations
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

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

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, All-Templates, Template-Validation, MOD-TemplateManagement, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Regression-Coverage, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-Templates, Template-Testing

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Templates accelerate campaign creation for all users)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Templates improve user efficiency and adoption)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Template usage)
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes (Template loading performance)

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Template selection and usage)
Permission_Level: Full template access and usage
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

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

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of all campaign templates mentioned in user story
Integration_Points: Template storage, workflow engine, template categorization
Code_Module_Mapped: TemplateManagement-AllTypes
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (All 6 specified templates plus additional types)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Template availability, Node count accuracy, Workflow preview functionality
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_012 (Template selection), TC_013 (Workflow builder), TC_005 (Campaign types)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+, Firefox 110+, Safari 16+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11, macOS 12+
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Template storage service, workflow engine, template preview system
Performance_Baseline: Template loading <2 seconds, preview generation <1 second
Data_Requirements: Complete template library with all specified templates

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: All templates loaded and available, template service active
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager with full template access
Test_Data: sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com, campaign configuration ready for template selection
Prior_Test_Cases: Campaign configuration steps completed, Step 3 accessible

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Navigate to Step 3 Templates tab	Templates tab active, 2x3 grid displays 6 primary templates	From user story steps	Template display validation
2	Verify "Cold Email Campaign for Sales"	Template shows email icon, "Sales" category, "8 nodes", description matches user story	Sales template	First template validation
3	Check Cold Email workflow preview	Preview shows: "Email Send → Wait 5 days → Email Opened? → Follow-up Email"	Workflow preview	Preview accuracy check
4	Verify "Simple B2B Sales Funnel"	Template shows funnel icon, "Sales" category, "12 nodes", B2B description	B2B template	Second template validation
5	Check B2B Sales workflow preview	Preview shows: "Newsletter Signup → Welcome Email → Demo Booking → Follow-up"	Workflow preview	Preview detail validation
6	Verify "Lead Nurturing Series"	Template shows people icon, "Marketing" category, "10 nodes", nurturing description	Nurturing template	Third template validation
7	Check Lead Nurturing workflow preview	Preview shows: "Contact Form → Educational Email → Wait 7 days → Case Study"	Workflow preview	Nurturing workflow check
8	Verify "Webinar Promotion"	Template shows calendar icon, "Events" category, "15 nodes", webinar description	Webinar template	Event template validation
9	Check Webinar workflow preview	Preview shows: "Registration → Reminder Emails → Webinar Day → Follow-up"	Workflow preview	Event workflow validation
10	Verify "Product Launch"	Template shows rocket icon, "Product" category, "18 nodes", launch description	Product template	Product template validation
11	Check Product Launch workflow preview	Preview shows: "Announcement → Email Series → Social Media → Launch Day"	Workflow preview	Launch workflow check
12	Verify "LinkedIn Building Outreach Program"	Template shows LinkedIn icon, "Social" category, "14 nodes", outreach description	LinkedIn template	Social template validation
13	Check LinkedIn workflow preview	Preview shows: "Connection Request → Wait 3 days → Connected? → Follow Message"	Workflow preview	LinkedIn workflow check
14	Test template loading performance	All templates load and display within 2 seconds	Performance measurement	Loading performance
15	Verify template categorization	Templates properly grouped by Sales (2), Marketing (1), Events (1), Product (1), Social (1)	Category validation	Categorization accuracy
16	Test template search functionality	Search for "sales" returns Cold Email and B2B Sales templates	Search: "sales"	Search functionality
17	Verify template node count accuracy	Each template's actual node count matches displayed count	Node count verification	Count accuracy validation

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All specified templates display with accurate information, node counts, categories, and workflow previews
Secondary_Verifications: Performance within baseline, categorization correct, search functionality works
Negative_Verification: No missing templates, incorrect information, or broken previews

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record template availability, information accuracy, performance measurements]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 18 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for template issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Template grid screenshots, workflow previews, performance metrics]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Template library validation)
Maintenance_Effort: Medium (Template library maintenance)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Template information validation ideal for automation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Step 3 accessibility, template service availability
Blocked_Tests: TC_012 (Template selection), workflow execution tests
Parallel_Tests: Custom workflow builder testing
Sequential_Tests: Should precede template selection and usage tests

Additional Information

Notes: Template availability and accuracy critical for user productivity - templates significantly reduce campaign creation time
Edge_Cases: Template corruption, missing templates, version compatibility
Risk_Areas: Template storage failures, workflow engine compatibility, template versioning
Security_Considerations: Template integrity validation, unauthorized template modification prevention

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Template customization and save-as-new-template functionality
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: Users may want to modify existing templates and save variations
Priority: P3-Medium
Scenario_2: Template version management and update handling
Type: Integration
Rationale: Templates may need updates that affect existing campaigns
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_3: Industry-specific template recommendations based on user profile
Type: Enhancement
Rationale: B2B utility SaaS could provide utility-industry-specific templates
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 12: External System Integration Failure Handling

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_012
Title: Verify graceful handling of external system failures with appropriate fallbacks and user notifications
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: External Integration
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Negative, Integration-Failure, Error-Handling, MOD-ExternalIntegration, P1-Critical, Phase-Integration, Type-Integration, Platform-Web, Report-Engineering, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-All, Failure-Handling

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (System reliability affects all users)
Revenue_Impact: High (System failures can block campaign creation entirely)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Reliability)
Compliance_Required: Yes (Uptime SLAs)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Technical user most likely to encounter integration issues)
Permission_Level: Full system access to test all integration points
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 35 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium (Simulated failures)
Data_Sensitivity: Medium
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of external system failure scenarios
Integration_Points: CRM, Email service, Geographic service, Template storage, Workflow engine
Code_Module_Mapped: ExternalIntegration-FailureHandling
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (All external dependencies)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Engineering
Report_Categories: Engineering, Quality-Dashboard, Integration-Testing, Performance-Metrics
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: Yes
Customer_Impact_Level: High

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: External system dependencies, Graceful degradation, Error handling
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_043 (Network issues), TC_036 (Connectivity problems)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging with external system simulation
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: External system simulators, failure injection tools
Performance_Baseline: Fallback response within 5 seconds
Data_Requirements: Cached fallback data available

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: External system simulators configured, failure injection tools ready
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with access to all integration features
Test_Data: alex.thompson@atlanticgrid.com, various campaign scenarios
Prior_Test_Cases: Normal integration functionality verified

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Simulate CRM database unavailability	Error message "Contact data temporarily unavailable, using cached data", cached segments display	CRM failure simulation	CRM fallback testing
2	Verify cached audience data functionality	Cached segments available with last-known contact counts, note about data freshness	Cached segment data	Fallback data validation
3	Simulate email service provider failure	Warning "Email validation service unavailable, proceed with caution", validation disabled	Email service failure	Email service fallback
4	Test campaign creation with email service down	Campaign creation continues, warning about email validation bypass	Campaign with unvalidated emails	Graceful degradation
5	Simulate geographic mapping service failure	Geographic distribution shows "Geographic data unavailable", text-based region info	Geographic service failure	Geographic fallback
6	Verify geographic fallback functionality	Regions listed as text without map visualization, functionality preserved	Text-based geography	Alternative visualization
7	Simulate template storage service failure	Error "Template service unavailable", option to proceed with basic workflow or retry	Template service failure	Template fallback
8	Test workflow creation with template service down	Basic workflow builder available, custom workflow creation functional	Manual workflow creation	Template-independent functionality
9	Simulate workflow engine partial failure	Warning "Advanced workflow features limited", basic functionality available	Workflow engine issues	Workflow degradation
10	Test multiple simultaneous service failures	System prioritizes critical functions, clear error messaging for each failure	Multiple service failures	Compound failure handling
11	Verify automatic retry mechanisms	System automatically retries failed services every 30 seconds, success notifications	Retry mechanism testing	Automatic recovery
12	Test service recovery notification	When services restore, users receive "Service restored" notifications	Service restoration	Recovery notification
13	Simulate authentication service issues	Graceful session extension, warning about authentication service problems	Auth service problems	Authentication resilience
14	Test data consistency during failures	No data corruption or inconsistency during service failures	Data integrity check	Data protection
15	Verify audit logging during failures	All failures and fallbacks properly logged for debugging	Audit log verification	Failure tracking
16	Test user notification system	Clear, non-technical error messages with suggested actions	User notification testing	User communication

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All external system failures handled gracefully with appropriate fallbacks and clear user communication
Secondary_Verifications: Data integrity maintained, automatic recovery functional, audit trails complete
Negative_Verification: No system crashes, data corruption, or user confusion during failures

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record failure handling, fallback functionality, recovery behavior]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 35 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for integration failure issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Error messages, fallback interfaces, recovery notifications]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly (Integration reliability monitoring)
Maintenance_Effort: High (External system simulation complexity)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Failure simulation and response validation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Normal integration functionality
Blocked_Tests: Production readiness validation
Parallel_Tests: Other resilience tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede disaster recovery testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for production reliability - B2B utility SaaS must maintain functionality even when external services fail
Edge_Cases: Cascading failures, partial service recovery, long-term service outages
Risk_Areas: Service dependency management, fallback data freshness, user communication clarity
Security_Considerations: Failure logging security, fallback data protection, service authentication during failures

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Long-term external service outages (24+ hours)
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Extended outages require different handling strategies
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Partial service functionality during degraded performance
Type: Performance
Rationale: Services may be slow rather than completely unavailable
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_3: Service dependency chain failures
Type: Integration
Rationale: Failure of one service may cascade to dependent services
Priority: P1-Critical

Test Case 13: Individual Campaign Type - Transactional Email Validation

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_013
Title: Verify transactional email campaign type configuration with compliance requirements and automated trigger validation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Campaign Type Configuration
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Happy-Path, Transactional-Email, Compliance, MOD-CampaignTypeConfig, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-Security-Validation, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-User-Acceptance, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-EmailService, Transactional-Type

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Transactional emails critical for all utility operations)
Revenue_Impact: High (Transactional emails affect customer service and compliance)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Automated-Communications
Compliance_Required: Yes (CAN-SPAM, GDPR for transactional emails)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Technical configuration expertise)
Permission_Level: Full transactional email configuration access
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 12 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Customer transaction data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of transactional email type configuration
Integration_Points: Email service, compliance validation, trigger systems
Code_Module_Mapped: CampaignType-Transactional
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Transactional email requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Transactional email compliance, Automated triggers, CAN-SPAM compliance
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_005 (All campaign types), TC_021 (Email configuration)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Email service provider, compliance validation service
Performance_Baseline: Type selection <2 seconds, compliance check <5 seconds
Data_Requirements: Transactional email templates, compliance validation data

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Transactional email service configured, compliance validation active
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with transactional email permissions
Test_Data: david.kim@pacificenergy.com, transactional email scenarios
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic campaign configuration working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Select "Transactional Email" campaign type	Type selects, info panel shows "Automated responses to user actions"	Transactional type selection	Type selection validation
2	Verify compliance information display	Info panel shows "Must comply with CAN-SPAM and GDPR regulations"	N/A	Compliance requirements shown
3	Check transactional examples	Examples include "Order confirmations, Password resets, Account notifications, Billing statements"	N/A	Example accuracy validation
4	Verify trigger requirement	System requires trigger selection: "API trigger", "Database event", "User action"	Trigger options	Trigger requirement enforcement
5	Select "API trigger" option	API endpoint configuration fields appear with validation	API trigger selection	API trigger setup
6	Configure API endpoint	Enter webhook URL, select authentication method, test connection	https://api.pacificenergy.com/webhooks/email	API configuration validation
7	Test API trigger validation	System validates endpoint accessibility and authentication	API validation test	Endpoint validation
8	Verify transactional template requirements	Only transactional templates available, promotional templates hidden	Template filtering	Template restriction validation
9	Check compliance validation	System validates transactional content requirements (no promotional content)	Compliance check	Content compliance validation
10	Configure opt-out requirements	System enforces transactional opt-out rules different from promotional	Opt-out configuration	Transactional opt-out rules
11	Test sender reputation requirements	System requires verified sender domain for transactional emails	Sender validation	Reputation requirements
12	Verify delivery priority	Transactional emails get higher delivery priority than promotional	Priority configuration	Delivery prioritization
13	Test volume limits	System applies different rate limits for transactional vs promotional	Volume configuration	Rate limit differentiation
14	Validate audit trail requirements	Enhanced logging required for transactional email compliance	Audit configuration	Compliance logging
15	Verify real-time sending	Transactional emails can bypass campaign scheduling for immediate delivery	Immediate sending test	Real-time delivery capability

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Transactional email type enforces compliance requirements, trigger configuration, and immediate delivery capabilities
Secondary_Verifications: Template filtering works, API integration functional, audit logging enabled
Negative_Verification: Promotional features disabled, compliance violations prevented

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record compliance validation, trigger configuration, template filtering]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 12 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for transactional email issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Compliance panels, API configuration, template filtering evidence]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Compliance critical)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Compliance regulation changes)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Configuration validation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic campaign type selection
Blocked_Tests: Transactional email execution tests
Parallel_Tests: Other campaign type individual tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede email delivery testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for B2B utility SaaS compliance - transactional emails have different legal requirements than promotional
Edge_Cases: Compliance regulation updates, API endpoint failures, mixed transactional/promotional content
Risk_Areas: Compliance violations, delivery failures, audit trail gaps
Security_Considerations: API authentication, audit trail security, compliance data protection

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Transactional email content scanning for promotional content detection
Type: Compliance
Rationale: System must prevent promotional content in transactional emails
Priority: P1-Critical
Scenario_2: Transactional email delivery failure fallback mechanisms
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Critical transactional emails must have delivery guarantees
Priority: P1-Critical

Test Case 14: Draft Auto-Save Under Network Interruption

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_014
Title: Verify draft auto-save functionality handles network interruptions with queuing and retry mechanisms
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Draft Management
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Edge-Case, Network-Interruption, Draft-Management, MOD-DraftManagement, P1-Critical, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Engineering, Report-Module-Coverage, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-NetworkResilience, Auto-Save-Resilience

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Network reliability affects all users)
Revenue_Impact: High (Data loss causes user frustration and abandonment)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Data reliability)
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Strategic users need reliable data preservation)
Permission_Level: Full draft creation and auto-save access
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 20 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium (Network simulation required)
Data_Sensitivity: High (Campaign draft data)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of network interruption handling during auto-save
Integration_Points: Network layer, storage service, retry mechanisms
Code_Module_Mapped: DraftManagement-NetworkResilience
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Network interruption handling)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Network resilience, Data preservation, Auto-save reliability
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_006 (Basic auto-save), TC_036 (Network connectivity)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging with network simulation tools
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Network simulation tools, draft storage service
Performance_Baseline: Retry within 10 seconds, successful save within 30 seconds of network restoration
Data_Requirements: Network interruption simulation capability

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Network simulation tools configured, draft auto-save functional
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager with full campaign creation access
Test_Data: sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com, campaign data for persistence testing
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic auto-save functionality verified

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Start campaign creation with active auto-save	Auto-save working normally every 30 seconds	"Q4 Energy Innovation Campaign"	Baseline auto-save establishment
2	Enter substantial campaign data	Campaign name, objectives, audience selection completed	Multi-step campaign data	Significant data for testing
3	Monitor auto-save success	"Draft saved" notifications appear regularly	N/A	Normal auto-save verification
4	Simulate network disconnection during save	Network disconnects mid-save operation	Network simulation tool	Mid-save interruption
5	Verify auto-save failure handling	"Auto-save failed - will retry when connection restored" message	N/A	Failure detection and messaging
6	Continue entering data while disconnected	Data entry continues, multiple failed saves queued	Additional campaign configuration	Offline data entry capability
7	Verify queue notification	"3 saves pending - will sync when connection restored" indicator	N/A	Queue status visibility
8	Restore network connection	Network connectivity restored	Network restoration	Connection recovery
9	Verify automatic retry execution	Queued saves execute automatically within 10 seconds	N/A	Automatic retry mechanism
10	Check save success notification	"All pending saves completed successfully" message	N/A	Batch save completion
11	Verify data integrity	All data entered during disconnection preserved accurately	Previously entered data	Data preservation validation
12	Test partial network failure	Slow/unreliable connection simulation	Intermittent connectivity	Partial failure handling
13	Verify progressive retry logic	Retry intervals increase: 5s, 10s, 20s, 40s	Retry timing observation	Progressive backoff validation
14	Test maximum retry attempts	After 5 failures, system suggests manual save	Extended failure simulation	Retry limit handling
15	Verify manual save during network issues	Manual save option remains available during auto-save failures	Manual save attempt	Manual override capability
16	Test draft corruption protection	Network failures don't corrupt existing draft data	Data integrity check	Corruption prevention

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Auto-save handles network interruptions with queuing, retry mechanisms, and complete data preservation
Secondary_Verifications: User notifications clear, retry logic progressive, manual save available as fallback
Negative_Verification: No data loss, corruption, or system instability during network issues

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record retry behavior, data preservation, queue handling, notification accuracy]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 20 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for network resilience issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Network failure notifications, retry attempts, data preservation evidence]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Build (Network resilience critical)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Network simulation complexity)
Automation_Candidate: Partial (Network simulation manual, data validation automated)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic auto-save functionality
Blocked_Tests: Production network resilience validation
Parallel_Tests: Other network resilience tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede mobile network testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for mobile users and areas with unreliable internet - B2B utility companies often operate in remote areas
Edge_Cases: Complete network outage, DNS failures, firewall blocking, proxy issues
Risk_Areas: Data loss during interruption, queue overflow, retry logic failures
Security_Considerations: Queued data encryption, retry authentication, secure failure recovery

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Auto-save during browser memory pressure scenarios
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Low memory conditions may affect auto-save reliability
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Cross-tab auto-save conflict resolution during network issues
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Multiple tabs may have conflicting save queues
Priority: P3-Medium

Test Case 15: Large Dataset Performance - 100K Contact Boundary Testing

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_015
Title: Verify system performance at specific contact count boundaries (50K, 75K, 100K) with graceful degradation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Performance Optimization
Test Type: Performance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Performance, Boundary-Testing, Large-Dataset, MOD-PerformanceOptimization, P1-Critical, Phase-Performance, Type-Performance, Platform-Web, Report-Performance-Metrics, Report-Engineering, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-API-Test-Results, Customer-Enterprise, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-Database, Dataset-Boundaries

Business Context

Customer_Segment: Enterprise (Large utility companies with massive contact databases)
Revenue_Impact: High (Performance issues prevent enterprise adoption)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Enterprise-Campaign-Creation
Compliance_Required: Yes (Enterprise SLA requirements)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Handles enterprise-scale operations)
Permission_Level: Full access to enterprise datasets
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 40 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Large contact datasets)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of performance boundaries and degradation patterns
Integration_Points: Database layer, caching system, UI rendering engine
Code_Module_Mapped: Performance-DatasetBoundaries
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Enterprise performance requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Enterprise scalability, Performance SLAs, Dataset size limits
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_009 (Large dataset general), TC_032 (Concurrent users)

Test Environment

Environment: Performance testing with enterprise-scale data
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (high-performance configuration)
Device/OS: Windows 10/11 with 32GB RAM
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Enterprise dataset environment, performance monitoring tools
Performance_Baseline: 50K: <3s, 75K: <5s, 100K: <8s
Data_Requirements: Precisely sized datasets at each boundary

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Enterprise performance environment, monitoring tools active
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with enterprise data access
Test_Data: alex.thompson@atlanticgrid.com, precisely sized test datasets
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic performance testing completed

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Load 50,000 contact segment	Segment loads within 3 seconds, memory usage <1GB	Enterprise Dataset A: 50,000 contacts	50K boundary baseline
2	Verify 50K performance metrics	All operations responsive, duplicate detection <5 seconds	50K performance measurement	50K performance validation
3	Add second 50K segment (total 100K)	Total calculation within 5 seconds, UI remains responsive	Enterprise Dataset B: 50,000 contacts	100K combined performance
4	Monitor memory usage at 100K	Browser memory <2GB, no memory leaks detected	Memory monitoring	Resource usage at 100K
5	Test 75,000 contact single segment	Single large segment loads within 5 seconds	Enterprise Dataset C: 75,000 contacts	75K boundary testing
6	Verify duplicate detection at 75K	Duplicate analysis completes within 8 seconds	75K duplicate analysis	Mid-scale duplicate performance
7	Load maximum 100,000 contact segment	Segment loads within 8 seconds, performance degraded but functional	Enterprise Dataset D: 100,000 contacts	Maximum boundary test
8	Test UI responsiveness at 100K	UI operations slower but remain functional, user feedback provided	UI interaction testing	User experience at maximum
9	Verify geographic distribution at 100K	Geographic visualization renders within 10 seconds or shows loading state	Geographic processing	Visualization performance
10	Test pagination at large datasets	Contact lists paginate properly, 50 contacts per page loads <2 seconds	Pagination testing	UI scalability validation
11	Monitor API response times	Database queries optimized, response times within acceptable degradation	API monitoring	Backend performance
12	Test browser refresh with 100K data	Page reload and data restoration within 15 seconds	Browser refresh test	State restoration performance
13	Verify graceful degradation messaging	System shows "Large dataset - some operations may be slower" warnings	User communication	Performance expectation setting
14	Test search/filter performance on 100K	Contact search returns results within 3 seconds	Search: "Pacific Energy"	Search performance at scale
15	Verify cleanup and reset performance	Reset to empty selection completes within 5 seconds, memory freed	Reset operation	Cleanup efficiency
16	Test system behavior at 101K (over limit)	System prevents loading or shows "Dataset too large" with alternatives	Attempt 101K contacts	Over-limit handling

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: System handles specific dataset boundaries (50K, 75K, 100K) with predictable performance degradation and clear user feedback
Secondary_Verifications: Memory usage controlled, API performance maintained, user experience acceptable
Negative_Verification: No system crashes, memory overflow, or unresponsive interface

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record performance measurements at each boundary, memory usage, degradation patterns]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 40 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for boundary performance issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Performance graphs, memory usage charts, boundary behavior evidence]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly (Performance regression monitoring)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Large dataset maintenance)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Performance metrics collection)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic dataset loading functionality
Blocked_Tests: Enterprise production deployment validation
Parallel_Tests: Other performance boundary tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede stress testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for enterprise sales - utility companies need predictable performance even with massive contact databases
Edge_Cases: Dataset growth during processing, concurrent large dataset access, memory pressure conditions
Risk_Areas: Memory management, database query optimization, UI rendering performance
Security_Considerations: Large dataset access logging, resource usage monitoring

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Performance degradation patterns with mixed segment sizes
Type: Performance
Rationale: Real enterprise usage involves varied segment sizes
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_2: Background processing impact on large dataset performance
Type: Performance
Rationale: Other system operations may affect large dataset handling
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 16: API Versioning Compatibility Testing

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_016
Title: Verify campaign creation APIs maintain backward compatibility across versions with proper version negotiation
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: API Versioning
Test Type: API
Test Level: Integration
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: API-Compatibility, Versioning, Integration, MOD-APIVersioning, P1-Critical, Phase-Integration, Type-API, Platform-Web, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Engineering, Report-Integration-Testing, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Customer-All, Risk-High, Business-Critical, Revenue-Impact-High, Integration-API, API-Versioning

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (API compatibility affects all integrations)
Revenue_Impact: High (Breaking changes prevent customer integrations)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: API-Integration
Compliance_Required: Yes (API contract compliance)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: System Integration (API consumer perspective)
Permission_Level: Full API access across versions
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

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 API version compatibility scenarios
Integration_Points: API gateway, version negotiation, backward compatibility layer
Code_Module_Mapped: API-VersionManagement
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (API versioning requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: API backward compatibility, Version negotiation, Integration stability
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_027 (Campaign API), TC_028 (Audience API), TC_029 (Templates API)

Test Environment

Environment: API testing environment with multiple versions
Browser/Version: N/A (API testing)
Device/OS: API testing tools
Screen_Resolution: N/A
Dependencies: Multiple API versions deployed, version negotiation service
Performance_Baseline: Version negotiation <100ms, API response times consistent
Data_Requirements: API clients for different versions

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Multiple API versions available (v1, v2, current), API testing tools configured
User_Roles_Permissions: API access credentials for all versions
Test_Data: API test data for campaign creation across versions
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic API functionality verified

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Test API v1 campaign creation	POST /api/v1/campaigns creates campaign successfully	v1 campaign JSON payload	Legacy version validation
2	Test API v2 campaign creation	POST /api/v2/campaigns creates campaign with enhanced features	v2 campaign JSON payload	Current version validation
3	Verify version header negotiation	Accept-Version: v1 returns v1 format, v2 returns v2 format	Version headers testing	Version negotiation
4	Test backward compatibility	v1 client can create campaigns using v2 endpoint with compatibility layer	v1 client simulation	Backward compatibility
5	Verify field mapping	v1 fields mapped correctly to v2 structure	Field mapping validation	Data transformation
6	Test new field defaults	v2 fields get appropriate defaults when created via v1 API	Default value testing	Forward compatibility
7	Verify deprecated field handling	v1 deprecated fields still accepted but marked as deprecated	Deprecated field usage	Deprecation handling
8	Test error response consistency	Error formats consistent across versions with version-appropriate details	Error simulation	Error compatibility
9	Verify audience API versioning	GET /api/v1/segments vs /api/v2/segments compatibility	Audience API versions	Audience version compatibility
10	Test template API versioning	Template retrieval compatible across versions	Template API versions	Template version compatibility
11	Verify response time parity	v1 and v2 API performance within 10% of each other	Performance comparison	Version performance impact
12	Test mixed version operations	Campaign created with v1, updated with v2 API successfully	Mixed version usage	Cross-version operations
13	Verify API documentation accuracy	Swagger/OpenAPI docs accurate for both versions	Documentation validation	Documentation consistency
14	Test version-specific validation	v2 stricter validation doesn't break v1 clients	Validation differences	Version-appropriate validation
15	Verify migration guidance	Clear upgrade path from v1 to v2 with migration tools	Migration testing	Version migration support

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: All API versions maintain compatibility with proper version negotiation and field mapping
Secondary_Verifications: Performance parity maintained, error handling consistent, migration support available
Negative_Verification: No breaking changes for existing integrations, no data loss during version transitions

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record version compatibility, field mapping accuracy, performance comparisons]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 25 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for API compatibility issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [API response comparisons, version negotiation logs, performance metrics]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (API compatibility critical)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Multiple version maintenance)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (API testing ideal for automation)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic API functionality
Blocked_Tests: Production API deployment, customer integration validation
Parallel_Tests: Other API integration tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede customer integration testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for B2B SaaS - customers rely on API stability for integrations with their internal systems
Edge_Cases: Version sunset scenarios, mixed version client usage, version rollback situations
Risk_Areas: Breaking changes, performance regression, data format inconsistencies
Security_Considerations: Version-specific authentication, authorization consistency, security feature parity

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: API version deprecation and sunset handling
Type: Integration
Rationale: Customers need time and guidance to migrate from deprecated versions
Priority: P1-Critical
Scenario_2: Version-specific rate limiting and throttling
Type: Performance
Rationale: Different versions may have different performance characteristics
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 17: Partial Duplicate Contact Scenarios

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_017
Title: Verify detection and handling of partial duplicate contacts including same email with different names and phone-only matches
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Duplicate Detection
Test Type: Functional
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Regression
Automation Status: Automated

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Partial-Duplicates, Complex-Matching, Duplicate-Detection, MOD-DuplicateDetection, P2-High, Phase-Regression, Type-Functional, Platform-Web, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Module-Coverage, Report-API-Test-Results, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Performance-Metrics, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-High, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-CRM, Partial-Matching

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Duplicate detection accuracy affects campaign effectiveness)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Partial duplicates affect targeting accuracy and compliance)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Audience-Optimization
Compliance_Required: Yes (Accurate contact counting for anti-spam compliance)
SLA_Related: No

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Detailed audience analysis)
Permission_Level: Full duplicate detection and resolution access
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 18 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Contact data analysis)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of partial duplicate detection scenarios
Integration_Points: CRM database, fuzzy matching algorithm, contact resolution service
Code_Module_Mapped: DuplicateDetection-### Test Case 9: Large Dataset Performance and Scalability

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_009
Title: Verify audience selection and duplicate detection performance with large datasets up to 100,000+ contacts per segment
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Audience Selection Performance
Test Type: Performance
Test Level: System
Priority: P1-Critical
Execution Phase: Performance
Automation Status: Automated

Business Context

Customer_Segment: Enterprise (Large utility companies with extensive contact databases)
Revenue_Impact: High (Performance issues block campaign creation for enterprise clients)
Business_Priority: Must-Have
Customer_Journey: Campaign-Creation (Enterprise scale)
Compliance_Required: Yes (Performance SLAs for enterprise clients)
SLA_Related: Yes

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Campaign Specialist (Handles enterprise-scale campaigns)
Permission_Level: Full access to large datasets
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: High
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 25 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: High
Data_Sensitivity: High (Large contact datasets)
Failure_Impact: Critical

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of large dataset handling and performance optimization
Integration_Points: CRM database, caching layer, performance monitoring
Code_Module_Mapped: Performance-AudienceSelection
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Enterprise scalability requirements)
Cross_Platform_Support: Web

Stakeholder Reporting

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

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Enterprise scalability, Performance SLAs, Large dataset handling
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_008 (Duplicate detection), TC_032 (Concurrent users)

Test Environment

Environment: Production-like with large datasets
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+
Device/OS: Windows 10/11
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080
Dependencies: Large contact database (100K+ contacts per segment), performance monitoring tools
Performance_Baseline: Segment loading <5 seconds, duplicate analysis <10 seconds
Data_Requirements: Enterprise-scale contact database with performance test data

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Large dataset environment, performance monitoring active
User_Roles_Permissions: Campaign Specialist with enterprise dataset access
Test_Data: emily.davis@mountainstates.com, enterprise segments with 50K+ contacts each
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic audience selection functional

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Load Step 2 with enterprise segments	Page loads within 5 seconds, 6 segments display with contact counts 50K+ each	Enterprise segment data	Initial load performance
2	Select first large segment (50K contacts)	Segment selects within 2 seconds, total audience updates to 50,000	Enterprise Prospects: 52,347 contacts	Single large segment performance
3	Add second large segment (75K contacts)	Real-time calculation completes within 3 seconds, total shows 127,347	Corporate Customers: 75,892 contacts	Dual segment calculation
4	Monitor memory usage during selection	Browser memory usage remains under 2GB, no memory leaks	Performance monitoring	Resource usage validation
5	Add third large segment (60K contacts)	Calculation within 4 seconds, total updates to 187,347, system responsive	Industrial Clients: 60,445 contacts	Triple segment performance
6	Trigger duplicate analysis on large dataset	Duplicate detection completes within 10 seconds, shows analysis results	187K+ total contacts	Large-scale duplicate detection
7	Verify duplicate analysis accuracy	System identifies duplicates across segments, provides detailed breakdown	Expected ~5-8% duplication rate	Accuracy at scale
8	Test geographic distribution with large data	Geographic chart renders within 5 seconds, accurately shows distribution	Global distribution	Geographic performance
9	Add fourth large segment (90K contacts)	System handles 270K+ contacts, performance degrades <20%	Global Enterprise: 89,567 contacts	Maximum load testing
10	Monitor API response times	All API calls remain under 1 second response time	API monitoring	Backend performance
11	Test rapid segment selection changes	Quick select/deselect of large segments maintains responsiveness	Rapid UI interaction	Stress testing
12	Verify pagination for duplicate list	Large duplicate lists paginate properly, load within 2 seconds per page	Paginated duplicate results	UI scalability
13	Test browser refresh with large selection	Page reloads and restores large segment selection within 8 seconds	Browser refresh	State restoration performance
14	Simulate concurrent large dataset access	Multiple users accessing large datasets simultaneously	Concurrent user simulation	Multi-user performance
15	Verify performance degradation gracefully	System provides feedback when approaching limits, suggests optimization	Near-limit conditions	Graceful degradation
16	Test dataset cleanup and reset	Reset to no selection performs quickly, memory usage returns to baseline	Reset operation	Cleanup performance

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: System handles enterprise-scale datasets (100K+ contacts per segment) within performance baselines without degradation
Secondary_Verifications: Memory usage controlled, API performance maintained, UI responsiveness preserved
Negative_Verification: No system crashes, memory leaks, or unacceptable performance degradation

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record performance measurements, memory usage, response times]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 25 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for performance issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Performance metrics, memory usage graphs, response time measurements]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Weekly (Performance regression detection)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Large dataset maintenance)
Automation_Candidate: Yes (Performance metrics collection automated)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Large dataset availability, performance monitoring setup
Blocked_Tests: Enterprise campaign creation, production deployment
Parallel_Tests: Can run with other performance tests
Sequential_Tests: Should precede enterprise user acceptance testing

Additional Information

Notes: Critical for enterprise B2B utility SaaS adoption - large utility companies have extensive contact databases requiring high performance
Edge_Cases: Dataset growth during testing, network latency impact, browser performance variations
Risk_Areas: Database query optimization, caching strategy effectiveness, memory management
Security_Considerations: Large dataset access logging, performance monitoring data privacy

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Performance impact of real-time contact data updates during large dataset selection
Type: Performance
Rationale: Enterprise contacts may be updated frequently, affecting selection performance
Priority: P1-Critical
Scenario_2: Network bandwidth impact on large dataset loading for remote users
Type: Performance
Rationale: Enterprise users may access system from various network conditions
Priority: P2-High
Scenario_3: Database connection pooling efficiency under large dataset queries
Type: Performance
Rationale: Multiple concurrent large dataset requests may overwhelm database connections
Priority: P2-High

Test Case 18: Cross-Device Draft Synchronization

Test Case Metadata

Test Case ID: CRM05.1P1US5.1_TC_018
Title: Verify campaign drafts synchronize across devices allowing users to start on desktop and continue on mobile
Created By: Hetal
Created Date: September 12, 2025
Version: 1.0

Classification

Module/Feature: Cross-Device Sync
Test Type: Integration
Test Level: System
Priority: P2-High
Execution Phase: Integration
Automation Status: Manual

Enhanced Tags for 17 Reports Support Tags: Cross-Device, Draft-Sync, Multi-Device, MOD-CrossDeviceSync, P2-High, Phase-Integration, Type-Integration, Platform-Both, Report-User-Acceptance, Report-Mobile-Compatibility, Report-Quality-Dashboard, Report-Customer-Segment-Analysis, Report-Integration-Testing, Customer-All, Risk-Medium, Business-Medium, Revenue-Impact-Medium, Integration-CloudSync, Device-Continuity

Business Context

Customer_Segment: All (Modern users expect cross-device continuity)
Revenue_Impact: Medium (Enhances user experience and adoption)
Business_Priority: Should-Have
Customer_Journey: Multi-Device-Usage
Compliance_Required: No
SLA_Related: No

Role-Based Context

User_Role: Marketing Manager (Strategic users often switch between devices)
Permission_Level: Full campaign creation across all devices
Role_Restrictions: None
Multi_Role_Scenario: No

Quality Metrics

Risk_Level: Medium
Complexity_Level: High
Expected_Execution_Time: 30 minutes
Reproducibility_Score: Medium (Multi-device setup required)
Data_Sensitivity: High (Campaign data across devices)
Failure_Impact: Medium

Coverage Tracking

Feature_Coverage: 100% of cross-device draft synchronization
Integration_Points: Cloud storage, device authentication, sync service
Code_Module_Mapped: CrossDeviceSync-DraftManagement
Requirement_Coverage: Complete (Cross-device functionality)
Cross_Platform_Support: Both (Web and Mobile)

Stakeholder Reporting

Primary_Stakeholder: Product
Report_Categories: User-Acceptance, Mobile-Compatibility, Quality-Dashboard, Integration-Testing
Trend_Tracking: Yes
Executive_Visibility: No
Customer_Impact_Level: Medium

Requirements Traceability

Related_Requirements: Cross-device continuity, Cloud sync, Mobile accessibility
Related_Bugs: N/A
Related_Test_Cases: TC_006 (Auto-save), TC_026 (Mobile responsiveness)

Test Environment

Environment: Staging with cloud sync enabled
Browser/Version: Chrome 115+ (Desktop), Safari Mobile (iOS), Chrome Mobile (Android)
Device/OS: Windows 10 (Desktop), iOS 16+ (Mobile), Android 13+ (Mobile)
Screen_Resolution: Desktop-1920x1080, Mobile-375x667
Dependencies: Cloud sync service, multi-device authentication
Performance_Baseline: Sync within 10 seconds across devices
Data_Requirements: Same user account accessible on multiple devices

Prerequisites

Setup_Requirements: Same user account configured on desktop and mobile devices, cloud sync enabled
User_Roles_Permissions: Marketing Manager with multi-device access
Test_Data: sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com, cross-device test scenarios
Prior_Test_Cases: Basic draft management and mobile responsiveness working

Test Procedure

Step #	Action	Expected Result	Test Data	Comments
1	Login on desktop browser	Successful authentication, campaign creation available	sarah.johnson@pacificenergy.com	Desktop session establishment
2	Start campaign creation on desktop	Begin campaign: select objective, enter name "Mobile Sync Test Campaign"	Desktop campaign creation	Initial draft creation
3	Complete Step 1 configuration	Configure campaign type, goal, funnel target on desktop	Desktop configuration data	Substantial draft progress
4	Verify auto-save on desktop	"Draft saved" confirmation, sync indicator active	N/A	Desktop save confirmation
5	Login on mobile device	Same user account authentication on mobile	Same credentials	Mobile session establishment
6	Navigate to campaign creation	Campaign creation accessible on mobile interface	N/A	Mobile interface access
7	Check for draft availability	"Continue Draft" option appears with "Mobile Sync Test Campaign"	N/A	Draft discovery on mobile
8	Resume draft on mobile	All desktop configuration data present and editable	Previous desktop data	Cross-device data integrity
9	Continue campaign on mobile	Proceed to Step 2, select audience segments on mobile	Mobile audience selection	Mobile continuation capability
10	Verify sync indicator	Sync status shows "Synced across devices" or similar	N/A	Sync status visibility
11	Switch back to desktop	Refresh desktop browser, verify mobile changes present	N/A	Reverse sync validation
12	Verify bidirectional sync	Desktop shows audience selection made on mobile	Mobile-added data	Bidirectional sync confirmation
13	Test concurrent editing	Make changes simultaneously on both devices	Concurrent changes	Conflict handling
14	Verify conflict resolution	System handles concurrent edits with "Sync conflict - choose version" dialog	Conflict scenario	Conflict resolution UI
15	Complete campaign on mobile	Finish remaining steps and launch campaign from mobile	Mobile completion	Full mobile workflow
16	Verify completion sync	Desktop shows campaign as completed/launched	N/A	Final state synchronization

Verification Points

Primary_Verification: Campaign drafts sync reliably across desktop and mobile devices with complete data preservation
Secondary_Verifications: Conflict resolution functional, sync status clear, performance acceptable
Negative_Verification: No data loss during device switching, sync conflicts properly handled

Test Results (Template)

Status: [Pass/Fail/Blocked/Not-Tested]
Actual_Results: [Record sync reliability, data integrity, conflict handling, performance]
Execution_Date: [When test was executed]
Executed_By: [Who performed the test]
Execution_Time: [Actual time vs expected 30 minutes]
Defects_Found: [Bug IDs for cross-device sync issues]
Screenshots_Logs: [Desktop and mobile screenshots, sync status indicators, conflict resolution]

Execution Analytics

Execution_Frequency: Per-Release (Cross-device functionality)
Maintenance_Effort: High (Multi-device test complexity)
Automation_Candidate: Partial (Sync validation automated, device switching manual)

Test Relationships

Blocking_Tests: Basic draft management, mobile responsiveness
Blocked_Tests: Advanced multi-device scenarios
Parallel_Tests: Other cross-device functionality
Sequential_Tests: Should precede offline capability testing

Additional Information

Notes: Important for modern user expectations - business users frequently switch between desktop and mobile devices
Edge_Cases: Network connectivity issues during sync, device storage limitations, authentication timeout
Risk_Areas: Data conflicts, sync performance, authentication across devices
Security_Considerations: Cross-device authentication security, data encryption during sync

Missing Scenarios Identified

Scenario_1: Offline draft creation with sync when connection restored
Type: Edge Case
Rationale: Users may create drafts without internet connection
Priority: P3-Medium
Scenario_2: Cross-device sync with different user permission levels
Type: Security
Rationale: User permissions may differ across devices or change between sessions
Priority: P2-High

Organization profile - CRM6.1P1US6.1

Integrations Management - CRM6.3P1US6.3

General settings - CRM06.4P1US6.4

SMTP Settings - CRM6.2P1US6.2

Bulk Import contacts - CRM1.1P1US01.1

CRM Segment Management - CRM03P1US3

Create Campaign - CRM05.1P1US5.1

CRM Email Template Management - CRM04P1US4

RFP Management System - CRM02.1P1US02.1

CRM Campaign Management System - CRM05P1US5

Company Management System - CRM02P1US02

CRM Contact Management - CRM01P1US01

Create Campaign - CRM05.1P1US5.1

Test Case 1: Display Business Objective Cards with Complete UI Validation

Test Case 2: Business Objective Selection with State Management

Test Case 3: Multi-Role Objective Selection Validation

Test Case 4: Campaign Name Field Comprehensive Validation

Test Case 5: All Campaign Types Validation and Configuration

Test Case 6: Draft Management - Auto-Save Functionality

Test Case 7: Multi-Role Campaign Handoff - Manager to Specialist

Test Case 8: Complex Multi-Segment Duplicate Contact Analysis

Test Case 9: Large Dataset Performance and Scalability

Test Case 10: Workflow Node Limits and Performance Testing

Test Case 11: All Campaign Template Types Comprehensive Testing

Test Case 12: External System Integration Failure Handling

Test Case 13: Individual Campaign Type - Transactional Email Validation

Test Case 14: Draft Auto-Save Under Network Interruption

Test Case 15: Large Dataset Performance - 100K Contact Boundary Testing

Test Case 16: API Versioning Compatibility Testing

Test Case 17: Partial Duplicate Contact Scenarios

Test Case 18: Cross-Device Draft Synchronization

No Comments