Produced by Araxis Merge on 1/8/2019 7:38:55 AM Central Standard Time. See www.araxis.com for information about Merge. This report uses XHTML and CSS2, and is best viewed with a modern standards-compliant browser. For optimum results when printing this report, use landscape orientation and enable printing of background images and colours in your browser.
# | Location | File | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
1 | PSD387 TEST v1.zip | EPIP_Test_Evaluation_(PSD_3.0_87).doc | Tue Jan 8 13:12:50 2019 UTC |
2 | PSD387 TEST v1.zip | EPIP_Test_Evaluation_(PSD_3.0_87).doc | Tue Jan 8 13:31:26 2019 UTC |
Description | Between Files 1 and 2 |
|
---|---|---|
Text Blocks | Lines | |
Unchanged | 4 | 534 |
Changed | 3 | 6 |
Inserted | 0 | 0 |
Removed | 0 | 0 |
Whitespace | |
---|---|
Character case | Differences in character case are significant |
Line endings | Differences in line endings (CR and LF characters) are ignored |
CR/LF characters | Not shown in the comparison detail |
No regular expressions were active.
1 | Existing P roduct Int ake Progra m (EPIP) | |
2 | Patch PSD* 3.0*87 | |
3 | Test Evalu ation | |
4 | ||
5 | Department of Vetera ns Affairs | |
6 | December 2 018 | |
7 | Version 1. 0 | |
8 | Revision H istory | |
9 | Note: The revision h istory cyc le begins once chang es or enha ncements a re request ed after t he Communi cations Pl an has bee n baseline d. | |
10 | DateVersio nDescripti onAuthor12 /12/20181. 0Initial d ocumentEPI P Project TeamArtifa ct Rationa le | |
11 | The test e valuation document i s the prim ary output of the te st and eva luation pr ocess, an integral p art of the systems e ngineering process, which iden tifies lev els of per formance a nd assists the devel oper in co rrecting d eficiencie s. | |
12 | Table of C ontents | |
13 | 11. | |
14 | Test Evalu ation Intr oduction | |
15 | ||
16 | ||
17 | 11.1. | |
18 | Test Evalu ation Scop e | |
19 | ||
20 | ||
21 | 11.2. | |
22 | Test Archi tecture | |
23 | ||
24 | ||
25 | 11.3. | |
26 | Test Envir onment/Con figuration | |
27 | ||
28 | ||
29 | 21.4. | |
30 | Installati on Process | |
31 | ||
32 | ||
33 | 22. | |
34 | Test Data | |
35 | ||
36 | ||
37 | 23. | |
38 | Issues | |
39 | ||
40 | ||
41 | 24. | |
42 | Test Execu tion Log | |
43 | ||
44 | ||
45 | 35. | |
46 | Test Defec t Log | |
47 | ||
48 | ||
49 | 36. | |
50 | Test Resul ts Summary | |
51 | ||
52 | ||
53 | 36.1. | |
54 | Defect Sev erity and Priority L evels | |
55 | ||
56 | ||
57 | 36.2. | |
58 | Total Defe cts by Sev erity Leve l | |
59 | ||
60 | ||
61 | 36.3. | |
62 | Breakdown of Test Re sults | |
63 | ||
64 | ||
65 | 36.4. | |
66 | Performanc e Testing | |
67 | ||
68 | ||
69 | 37. | |
70 | Test Cover age | |
71 | ||
72 | ||
73 | 37.1. | |
74 | Requiremen ts Covered | |
75 | ||
76 | ||
77 | 47.2. | |
78 | Section 50 8 Complian ce Coverag e | |
79 | ||
80 | ||
81 | 48. | |
82 | Suggested Actions | |
83 | ||
84 | ||
85 | 49. | |
86 | Defect Sev erity and Priority D efinitions | |
87 | ||
88 | ||
89 | 59.1. | |
90 | Defect Sev erity Leve l | |
91 | ||
92 | ||
93 | 59.1.1. | |
94 | Severity L evel 1 – C ritical | |
95 | ||
96 | ||
97 | 59.1.2. | |
98 | Severity L evel 2 - H igh | |
99 | ||
100 | ||
101 | 59.1.3. | |
102 | Severity L evel 3 - M edium | |
103 | ||
104 | ||
105 | 69.1.4. | |
106 | Severity L evel 4 - L ow | |
107 | ||
108 | ||
109 | 69.2. | |
110 | Priority C lassificat ions | |
111 | ||
112 | ||
113 | 69.2.1. | |
114 | Priority 1 - Resolve Immediate ly | |
115 | ||
116 | ||
117 | 69.2.2. | |
118 | Priority 2 - Give Hi gh Attenti on | |
119 | ||
120 | ||
121 | 69.2.3. | |
122 | Priority 3 - Normal Queue | |
123 | ||
124 | ||
125 | 69.2.4. | |
126 | Priority 4 - Low Pri ority | |
127 | ||
128 | ||
129 | 610. | |
130 | Optional T ables, Cha rts, and G raphs | |
131 | ||
132 | ||
133 | 711. | |
134 | Document A pproval Si gnatures | |
135 | ||
136 | ||
137 | 8Appendix A - Test E xecution L og | |
138 | ||
139 | ||
140 | 9Appendix B – Defect Log | |
141 | ||
142 | ||
143 | ||
144 | ||
145 | Test Evalu ation Intr oduction | |
146 | The purpos e of this Test Evalu ation is t o: | |
147 | Identify t he testing approach used. | |
148 | Present a summary an alysis of the key te st results from the remediatio n of this intake for review an d assessme nt by desi gnated sta keholders. | |
149 | Provide a general st atement of the quali ty of the system und er test. | |
150 | Make recom mendations for futur e testing efforts. | |
151 | Test Evalu ation Scop e | |
152 | The scope of this Te st Evaluat ion is to verify the functiona lity of th e Patch PS D*3.0*87 c ode modifi cation, as determine d by Funct ional, Com ponent Int egration/S ystem, and Regressio n testing. Testing a ctivities followed t he specifi cations ou tlined in the follow ing Master Test Plan : PSD*3.0* 87 Master Test Plan (included in Appendi x A). | |
153 | Test Archi tecture | |
154 | Following are the EP IP test ac counts use d by the L eidos Deve lopment an d SQA Test ing teams to test PS D*3.0*87. | |
155 | Developmen t Test Acc ounts | |
156 | (For Unit Testing)SQ A Test Acc ounts | |
157 | (For Funct ional, Reg ression, a nd Compone nt Integra tion and S ystem Test ing)VistAS 1 (alterna te name: D 1S1)VistAG 1 (alterna te name: D 1G1) VistA S2 (altern ate name: D1S2) – | |
158 | for CPRS G UI testing onlyVistA G2 (altern ate name: D1G2) – | |
159 | for CPRS G UI testing onlyTest Environmen t/Configur ation | |
160 | The EPIP t est accoun ts are mai ntained by the EPIP System Adm inistrator , who inst alls all V A-released patches a s soon as they are n ationally released. All EPIP t est accoun ts are clo ned from e xisting VA Enterpris e Testing Services ( ETS) test accounts. The Comput erized Pat ient Recor d System ( CPRS) Grap hical User Interface (GUI) exe cutable is configure d for each VistA ins tance util izing a un ique Inter net Protoc ol (IP) ad dress to c onnect to the VistA applicatio ns. Any up dates to t he CPRS GU I executab le are han dled by th e EPIP Sys tem Admini strator. | |
161 | All EPIP T est Engine ers and De velopers w ho have th e proper c redentials can acces s the test accounts. The VA Au stin Infor mation Tec hnology Ce nter (AITC ) support team reset s password s and sets up new ac cess crede ntials on an as-need ed basis. | |
162 | Installati on Process | |
163 | As soon as the remed iation pro cess is co mplete and the patch is availa ble for te sting, a K IDS build is created in the De velopment account an d then sen t to FORUM for final packaging . The patc h is then submitted to the VA SQA Lead’s Mailman a ccount for installat ion. | |
164 | An EPIP De veloper or Test Engi neer utili zes the KI DS Install ation proc ess to ext ract the b uild from the patch and instal l the buil d into a t est accoun t. The ind ividual wh o installs the patch verifies the routin e checksum s and also checks fo r errors d uring the installati on process . If the p atch is su ccessfully installed without a ny errors, then the EPIP Test team proce eds with F unctional, Regressio n, and Com ponent Int egration a nd System testing. I f defects are found, then the Developmen t team wor ks to find a resolut ion and cr eates new versions o f the patc h until al l defects are resolv ed. | |
165 | Test Data | |
166 | The SQA Te sting team utilizes the test d ata in the designate d test acc ounts (D1G 1, D1G2). | |
167 | The test d ata is enc rypted fol lowing the standards set forth by the VA Office of Informati on & Techn ology (OIT ). All Per sonally Id entifiable Informati on (PII) a nd Protect ed Health Informatio n (PHI) is scrubbed and is not available to the Te st Enginee rs. | |
168 | All testin g is execu ted using encrypted test patie nts availa ble from a ny of the EPIP test accounts. Examples o f encrypte d test pat ients: | |
169 | AAAHURMMX, XPHY | |
170 | BADHB, HAA DXS | |
171 | FDHUX, YHI J | |
172 | All tests were execu ted manual ly by EPIP Test Engi neers. | |
173 | Issues | |
174 | No issues were encou ntered dur ing testin g of PSD*3 .0*87. | |
175 | TitleIssue Descripti onTypeSeve rityN/AN/A N/AN/ATest Execution Log | |
176 | The Test E xecution L og records the execu tion of te st scripts and docum ents the t est result s for each test scri pt. | |
177 | The SQA Te sting team utilizes the Ration al Quality Managemen t (QM) too l for all testing ac tivities. All test d ocuments a re stored in the EPI P reposito ry, includ ing the Ma ster Test Plan, Test Suites, T est Cases, and Test Scripts. T est execut ion is per formed, an d test res ults recor ded, in Ra tional QM. The Test Engineer a dds the te st results to the Te st Executi on records to indica te whether testing a chieved Pa ss or Fail status. | |
178 | The Test E xecution r ecords for PSD*3.0*8 7 are incl uded in th e EPIP Pat ch PSD*3.0 *87 Master Test Plan . The Mast er Test Pl an is avai lable in A ppendix A. | |
179 | Test Defec t Log | |
180 | The Test D efect Log is a tool for record ing, analy zing, trac king, and documentin g the clos ure of def ects. It s pecifies t he screen, field, be havior or result tha t occurred , and the IEEE-defin ed Severit y Level. I t includes enough in formation for the de veloper to find and re-create the defect . The Defe ct Log is available in Appendi x B. | |
181 | Test Resul ts Summary | |
182 | SQA testin g for this intake st arted in t he Dev1 Go ld1 test e nvironment on Decemb er 7, 2018 and ended on Decemb er 10, 201 8. | |
183 | Test versi on 1 was i nstalled i n the test environme nt on Dece mber 7, 20 18 after U nit testin g in Dev1 Silver1 wa s complete d. This pa tch for a patch was created in support o f PSD*3.0* 84. Upon c ompletion of Compone nt Integra tion and S ystem Test ing, Funct ional Test ing, and R egression Testing, z ero (0) de fects were found and reported. | |
184 | Defect Sev erity and Priority L evels | |
185 | A defect i s defined as a flaw in a compo nent or sy stem that can cause the compon ent or sys tem to fai l to perfo rm its req uired func tion, e.g. , an incor rect state ment or da ta definit ion. A def ect, if en countered during exe cution, ma y cause a failure of the compo nent or sy stem. | |
186 | Defects ar e categori zed accord ing to sev erity and priority l evels. The test anal yst assign s the seve rity, whil e the deve lopment ma nager assi gns the pr iority for repair. F or more in formation, see Defec t Severity and Prior ity Defini tion in th is Test Ev aluation. | |
187 | Total Defe cts by Sev erity Leve l | |
188 | The Defect Log in Ap pendix B d isplays th e defects encountere d while te sting this patch, an d the seve rity level of each. | |
189 | Breakdown of Test Re sults | |
190 | Testing wa s complete d on Decem ber 10, 20 18. All te st results were reco rded in Ra tional QM. Detailed results ar e availabl e in the E PIP Patch PSD*3.0*87 Master Te st Plan (s ee Appendi x A). | |
191 | Performanc e Testing | |
192 | Performanc e testing was not co nducted. | |
193 | Test Cover age | |
194 | The EPIP P atch PSD*3 .0*87 Mast er Test Pl an contain s details on test co verage (se e Appendix A). | |
195 | Requiremen ts Covered | |
196 | The requir ements for PSD*3.0*8 7 are stor ed in the Rational R equirement s Manageme nt (RM) ap plication. The test cases stor ed in Rati onal Quali ty Managem ent (QM) a re used to validate that the r equirement s have bee n addresse d, providi ng full tr aceability . The user stories s tored in R ational Co nfiguratio n Manageme nt (CM) ar e linked t o the requ irements i n RM and t est cases in QM. | |
197 | The follow ing links provide ac cess to th e various Controlled Substance s reposito ries in th e Rational toolkit. If link tr anslation issues pre vent direc t access, copy and p aste the U RLs into y our browse r. | |
198 | Controlled Substance s (RM) – G o to Artif acts. Loca te the EPI P folder o n the left side of t he page an d expand i t to displ ay patch f olders. Ea ch patch f older cont ains the r equirement s for the patch numb er shown i n the fold er name. | |
199 | https://cl m.rational .oit. DNS /rm/web#ac tion=com.i bm.rdm.web .pages.sho wFoundatio nProjectDa shboard&co mponentURI =https://c lm.rationa l.oit. DNS /rm/rm-pro jects/_34f 44cb7EeapD L5RWxOYCQ/ components /_4epS4sb7 EeapDL5RWx OYCQ | |
200 | Controlled Substance s (QM) – G o to Plann ing, then Browse Tes t Plans, a nd then se arch for t he Master Test Plan you need. The Master Test Plan and test cases are linked to requiremen ts. | |
201 | https://cl m.rational .oit. DNS /qm/web/co nsole/Cont rolled_Sub stances%20 (QM)#actio n=com.ibm. rqm.planni ng.home.ac tionDispat cher&subAc tion=viewU serHome | |
202 | Controlled Substance s (CM) – G o to Plans , then All Plans, an d then sea rch for th e Sprint P lan you ne ed. The us er stories in each P lan are li nked to re quirements and test cases. | |
203 | https://cl m.rational .oit. DNS /ccm/web/p rojects/Co ntrolled_S ubstances% 20(CM)#act ion=com.ib m.team.das hboard.vie wDashboard | |
204 | Section 50 8 Complian ce Coverag e | |
205 | Section 50 8 testing was not re quired for this patc h. This wi ll be repo rted to VA by submit tal of the following document: | |
206 | EPIP_VASec tion508_In take_Docum ent_(PSD_3 .0_87) | |
207 | Suggested Actions | |
208 | Leidos rec ommends mo ving this patch to I OC testing . | |
209 | Defect Sev erity and Priority D efinitions | |
210 | The classi fication o f defects within a s ystem exam ines both the severi ty and pri ority of t he defect. | |
211 | Severity i s a measur e of how g reat the i mpact is o n the user ’s ability to comple te the doc umented ac tions with in the sys tem. | |
212 | Priority d etermines the speed with which a given d efect must be repair ed. | |
213 | Defect cla ssificatio n may be d etermined either bec ause testi ng is dela yed by a f ailure in the system or becaus e a cumber some worka round prev ents a use r from com pleting th e assigned tasks. Bo th severit y and prio rity measu res must b e recorded when sche duling def ect resolu tion tasks . | |
214 | Defect Sev erity Leve l | |
215 | The follow ing subsec tions iden tify the d efect seve rity level s. | |
216 | Severity L evel 1 – C ritical | |
217 | Institute of Electri cal and El ectronics Engineers (IEEE) def inition: T he defect results in the failu re of the complete s oftware sy stem, of a subsystem , or of a software u nit (progr am or modu le) within the syste m. | |
218 | Any defect that comp romises pa tient safe ty or syst em securit y. Example s of syste m security defects i nclude bre ach of con fidentiali ty require ments of t he Privacy Act, the Health Ins urance Por tability a nd Account ability Ac t (HIPAA), or Federa l Tax Info rmation gu idelines. | |
219 | Loss of sy stem funct ionality c ritical to user oper ations wit h no suita ble workar ound, i.e. , there is no way to achieve t he expecte d results using the applicatio n. | |
220 | System cra sh or hang that prev ents furth er testing or operat ion of the complete applicatio n or a sec tion of th e applicat ion. | |
221 | Any defect that caus es corrupt ion of dat a from a r esult of t he system (as oppose d to user error). | |
222 | Any defect in which inappropri ate transm issions ar e consiste ntly gener ated or ap propriate transmissi ons of HL7 messages fail to be generated . | |
223 | Loss of fu nctionalit y resultin g in erron eous eligi bility/enr ollment de terminatio ns or comm unications not being sent. | |
224 | Severity L evel 2 - H igh | |
225 | IEEE defin ition: The defect re sults in t he failure of the co mplete sof tware syst em, of a s ubsystem, or of a so ftware uni t (program or module ) within t he system. There is no way to make the f ailed comp onent(s) f unction. H owever, th ere are ac ceptable p rocessing alternativ es which w ill yield the desire d result. | |
226 | A major de fect in th e function ality that does not result in corruption of data. | |
227 | A major de fect in th e function ality resu lting in a failure o f all or p art of the applicati on, where: | |
228 | The expect ed results can tempo rarily be achieved b y alternat e means. T he custome r indicate s the work around is acceptabl e for the short term . | |
229 | Any defect that does not confo rm to Sect ion 508 st andards. | |
230 | Any defect that resu lts in ina ccurate or missing r equirement s. | |
231 | Any defect that resu lts in inv alid authe ntication or authent ication of an invali d end user . | |
232 | Severity L evel 3 - M edium | |
233 | IEEE defin ition: The defect do es not res ult in a f ailure, bu t causes t he system to produce incorrect , incomple te, or inc onsistent results, o r the defe ct impairs the syste ms usabili ty. | |
234 | Minor func tionality is not wor king as in tended and a workaro und exists but is no t suitable for long term use | |
235 | The inabil ity of a v alid user to access the system consisten t with gra nted privi leges | |
236 | Typographi cal or gra mmatical e rrors in t he applica tion, incl uding inst allation g uides, use r guides, training m anuals, an d design d ocuments | |
237 | Any defect producing cryptic, incorrect, or inappr opriate er ror messag es | |
238 | Any defect that resu lts from t he use of non-standa rd data te rminology in the app lication o r document ation, as defined by the Depar tment of V eterans Af fairs | |
239 | Cosmetic i ssues that are impor tant to th e integrit y of the p roduct, bu t do not r esult in d ata entry and or dat a quality problems. | |
240 | Severity L evel 4 - L ow | |
241 | IEEE defin ition: The defect do es not cau se a failu re, does n ot impair usability, and the d esired pro cessing re sults are easily obt ained by w orking aro und the de fect. | |
242 | Minor loss of, or de fect in th e function ality wher e a long t erm use ex ists | |
243 | Low-level cosmetic i ssues. | |
244 | Priority C lassificat ions | |
245 | The follow ing subsec tions iden tify the a ppropriate actions f or defects at each p riority le vel, per d efinitions of IEEE. | |
246 | Priority 1 - Resolve Immediate ly | |
247 | Further de velopment and/or tes ting canno t occur un til the de fect has b een repair ed. The sy stem canno t be used until the repair has been affe cted. | |
248 | Priority 2 - Give Hi gh Attenti on | |
249 | The defect must be r esolved as soon as p ossible be cause it i s impairin g developm ent and/or testing a ctivities. System us e will be severely a ffected un til the de fect is fi xed. | |
250 | Priority 3 - Normal Queue | |
251 | The defect should be resolved in the nor mal course of develo pment acti vities. It can wait until a ne w build or version i s created. | |
252 | Priority 4 - Low Pri ority | |
253 | The defect is an irr itant that should be repaired, but can b e repaired after mor e serious defects ha ve been fi xed. | |
254 | Optional T ables, Cha rts, and G raphs | |
255 | None. | |
256 | Document A pproval Si gnatures | |
257 | Signed: __ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ | |
258 | Program/Pr oject Mana ger | |
259 | Date | |
260 | Signed: __ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ | |
261 | Business S ponsor Rep resentativ e | |
262 | Date | |
263 | Signed: __ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ | |
264 | Test Lead | |
265 | Date | |
266 | Appendix A - Test Ex ecution Lo g | |
267 | The Test E xecution R ecords for PSD*3.0*8 7 are incl uded in th e EPIP Pat ch PSD*3.0 *87 Master Test Plan . | |
268 | Appendix B – Defect Log | |
269 | No defects were foun d during t esting of PSD*3.0*87 . | |
270 | SQA Defect IDAffecte d ScreenAf fected Fie ldObserved BehaviorS everityDes criptionN/ AN/AN/AN/A N/ANo defe cts were f ound durin g Unit Tes ting of ve rsion 1.0. N/AN/AN/AN /AN/ANo de fects were found dur ing Compon ent Integr ation/Syst ems Testin g of versi on 1.0.N/A N/AN/AN/AN /ANo defec ts were fo und during Regressio n testing of version 1.0.N/AN/ AN/AN/AN/A No defects were foun d during F unctional Testing of version 1 .0. |
Araxis Merge (but not the data content of this report) is Copyright © 1993-2016 Araxis Ltd (www.araxis.com). All rights reserved.