QA Standards - Public Websites - Discharge Upgrade Wizard

[it-harrison]

General Information

VFS team name

Public Websites

VFS product name

Discharge Upgrade Wizard

VFS feature name

Point of Contact/Reviewers

@it-harrison - Ian Harrison - QA

---

QA Standards

Regression Test Plan

• [ ] Standard has been met
• [x] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  Since this is an upgrade to the existing tool, there should be a Regression Test Plan.

Test Plan

• [ ] Standard has been met
• [x] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  The QA documents states that: "The team manually tested all flows and branching logic with each complete user story. We tested edit question flows on the review page along with navigation when editing a question." But the specific tests performed are not further documented, in particular the results of the tests are not included.

Traceability Reports

• [x] Standard has been met

• [ ] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  E2E Test Participation

• [x] Standard has been met

• [ ] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  Unit Test Coverage

• Lines %: 70.29

• Functions %: 71.37

• Statements %: 70.38

• Branches %: 46.22

• [ ] Standard has been met

• [x] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  Endpoint Monitoring (Completed Playbook)

• [x] Standard has been met

• [ ] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  Logging Silent Failures

• [ ] Standard has been met

• [x] Standard has not been met

  Explanation of failure to meet standard (if applicable):

  No logging silent failures artifact provided

Next Steps for the VFS team

• [ ] Questions? For the most timely response, comment on Slack in your team channel tagging @platform-governance-team-members with any questions or to get help validating the issue.
• [ ] Close the ticket when your Product Owner determines that you have sufficiently met the QA Standards.

Platform directions

• Update "Issue Title" to be of the form "QA Standards - VFS Team - VFS Product"
• Add the VFS team, product name, and feature name
• Add your name, practice area, and GH handle under Point of Contact/Reviewers
• Complete the QA Standards section, making sure to include an "Explanation of failure to meet standard" for every Standard the product does not meet.
• Link to the Collaboration Cycle Request epic
• Add epic's milestone
• Add assignees:
  • VFS PM
  • Yourself (optional)
• Add labels:
  • VFS team label
  • VFS product label
  • QA-standards label
  • launch-blocking label if the product has failed to meet a required QA Standard

[chriskim2311]

@it-harrison @FranECross @jilladams Thanks for the review! Couple questions:

For the zero silent failures, there is no api or backend communication for this application. It is purely a react app and have error handling for all questions. Users will not come to a step in the flow where there will be a silent failure. Not sure what we would need to provide for that requirement.

Also for the unit test coverage is there a way for us to get approval with just the v2 files and folders showing as 80% or above? There are some tests that I can add and show the updated coverage for the folders containing only v2 code. As we stated in the QA Artifact we have both v1 and v2 code in the folder and that v1 is missing unit test coverage. So the current unit test coverage is not an accurate depiction of just v2 of the wizard. The v1 code will need to still be in this folder until we launch then we can deprecate the folders and code that wont be in use anymore.

[it-harrison]

@it-harrison Thanks for the review! Couple questions:

For the zero silent failures, there is no api or backend communication for this application. It is purely a react app and have error handling for all questions. Users will not come to a step in the flow where there will be a silent failure. Not sure what we would need to provide for that requirement.

Also for the unit test coverage is there a command we can run locally to give us the current percent coverage? As we stated in the QA Artifact we have both v1 and v2 code in the folder and that v1 is missing some of the tests. I can work on those to get it above 80% and passing but wanted to check if we can get the total coverage locally.

@chriskim2311 - that's perfectly fine for the logging silent failures artifact, it doesn't apply in your case. as for coverage, we evaluate at the app level, and the app level is normally defined by the level of the manifest.json file, which in your case means running yarn test:coverage-app discharge-wizard. If there is code that you plan to remove once this update goes live (but which is in production now) you can remove it locally before running the coverage report if that helps and use those numbers