QA/WebVR
Approvals Required / Received
The following individuals are required to/have approved this Test Plan:
| Name | Title | Department | Approval Date | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QA Manager | Product Integrity | Date | ||
| Software Engineer | Engineering | Date | ||
| EPM | Product Management | Date |
Revision History
This section describes the modifications that have been made to this wiki page. A new row has been completed each time the content of this document is updated (small corrections for typographical errors do not need to be recorded). The description of the modification contains the differences from the prior version, in terms of what sections were updated and to what extent.
| Date | Version | Author | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2017 | 1.0 | Cristian Comorasu | Created first draft |
Contents
Overview
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe the WebVR feature from a testing perspective, including the following details:
- Scope, focus areas and objectives of testing
- Owners and points of contact for areas of responsibility
- Strategy and types of testing
- The entry and exit criteria
- The basis of the test estimates
- Any risks, issues, assumptions and test dependencies
- The test schedule and major milestones
- The test deliverables
See https://wiki.mozilla.org/QA/MozVR for other test plans.
Scope
This wiki details the testing that will be performed by the project team for the webVR project. It defines the overall testing requirements and provides an integrated view of the project test activities. Its purpose is to document:
- What will be tested
- How testing will be performed
Ownership
Developer contacts: Kearwood Kip Gilbert
QA contacts: Cristian Comorasu (:CristiComo), Cornel Ionce (:cornel_ionce)
Testing summary
Scope of Testing
In Scope
The current testing scope is to ensure that the WebVR:
- does not have regressions in performance or latency
- is stable
- is reliable ( visibility )
Out of Scope
Detail what is out of scope from a testing perspective for the project team. Note: if usability testing is not in the scope of testing feature.
Requirements for testing
Environments
Testing will be performed on following OSes (x64 infrastructures):
- Windows 10
- Windows 8.1
Hardware
The minimum system requirements for Windows OS are:
- Graphics
- GTX 970 equivalent or greater
- AMD 290 R9 equivalent or greater
- CPU
- Intel i5-4590 equivalent or greater
- AMD FX 8320 or greater
- 8GB+ RAM
- Compatible HDMI 1.3 video output
- 2x USB 3.0 ports
- Windows 7 SP1 or newer, plus the DirectX platform update
Devices
- Oculus Rift CV1 (for pc) + Oculus Touch Controlllers
- HTC Vive (for pc) + Vive Controllers
Testing will be performed on a machine with the following specifications:
- GPU: MSI GeForce® GTX 1050 2GT OC, 2GB GDDR5
- CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.50 GHz
- RAM: 16 gb DDR3 @ 1600mhz
Channel dependent settings (configs) and environment setups
Nightly
text
Beta
text
Test Strategy
Risk Assessment and Coverage
| ID | Description / Threat Description | Covered by Test Objective | Magnitude | Probability | Priority | Impact Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAC-1 | Risk description 1 | TO-1 | 2-Moderate | 1-Unlikely | 3-High | 6 |
| RAC-2 | Risk description 2 | TO-1 | 3-High | 3-Almost Certain | 3-High | 27 |
| RAC-3 | Risk description 3 | TO-2 | 2-Moderate | 2-Possible | 3-High | 12 |
Values:
- Magnitude: 1- Low , 2-Moderate, 3-High
- Probability: 1-Unlikely, 2-Possible, 3-Almost Certain
- Priority: 1 - Low, 2-Medium, 3-High
Impact Score Breakdown:
- An impact value of 1, 2, 3, 4 would describe an area which although should be covered there aren't expected any discoveries of critical issues.
- An impact value of 6, 8, 9, 12 would describe an area in which we expect to find issues but those issues are not expected to be critical.
- An impact value of 18 or 27 would describe an area on which it is likely to find issues and those issues to be critical or blockers.
Test Objectives
This section details the progression test objectives that will be covered. Please note that this is at a high level. For large projects, a suite of test cases would be created which would reference directly back to this master. This could be documented in bullet form or in a table similar to the one below.
| Ref | Function | Test Objective | Evaluation Criteria | Test Type | RAC | Owners |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WebVR | The visual efects and user happy flow. | The feature is smooth and visualy reliable. | Manual,Regression, Performance, Usability | RAC-1, RAC-2, RAC-3 | Desktop Team |
| 2 |
Builds
- Nightly Firefox
- Archives of older builds are listed here : http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/
- Beta Firefox
- Archives of older builds are listed here : https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/candidates/
Test Execution Schedule
The following table identifies the anticipated testing period available for test execution.
| Project phase | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|
| Start project | 07.12.2017 | TBD |
| Study documentation/specs received from developers | 07.12.2017 | 07.13.2017 |
| QA - Test plan creation | 07.12.2017 | 07.12.2017 |
| QA - Test cases/Env preparation | 07.13.2017 | 07.14.2017 |
| QA - Nightly Testing | Missed | Missed |
| QA - Beta Testing | 07.14.2017 | 07.21.2017 |
| Release Date | TBD | TBD |
Testing Tools
Detail the tools to be used for testing, for example see the following table:
| Process | Tool |
|---|---|
| Test plan creation | Mozilla wiki |
| Test case creation | TestRail/ Google docs |
| Test case execution | TestRail |
| Bugs management | Bugzilla |
Status
Overview
Track the dates and build number where feature was released to Nightly (TBD) Track the dates and build number where feature was merged to Release/Beta (TBD)
References
- List and links for specs
List and links for available specs - documents, user stories, specifications (TBD)
Testcases
Test Areas
| Test Areas | Covered | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Private Window | YES | - |
| Multi-Process Enabled | YES | - |
| Multi-process Disabled | YES | - |
| Theme (high contrast) | NO | - |
| UI | ||
| Mouse-only operation | NO | - |
| Keyboard-only operation | NO | - |
| Display (HiDPI) | YES | TBD |
| Interaction (scroll, zoom) | NO | - |
| Usable with a screen reader | NO | - |
| Usability and/or discoverability testing | YES | TBD |
| RTL build testing | NO | - |
| Help/Support | ||
| Help/support interface required | YES | TBD |
| Support documents planned(written) | YES | - |
| Install/Upgrade | ||
| Feature upgrades/downgrades data as expected | YES | TBD |
| Does sync work across upgrades | NO | TBD |
| Requires install testing | YES | TBD |
| Affects first-run or onboarding | NO | TBD |
| Does this affect partner builds? Partner build testing | NO | - |
| Enterprise | Raise up the topic to developers to see if they are expecting to work different on ESR builds | |
| Enterprise administration | NO | - |
| Network proxies/autoconfig | NO | - |
| ESR behavior changes | NO | - |
| Locked preferences | NO | - |
| Data Monitoring | ||
| Temporary or permanent telemetry monitoring | NO | - |
| Telemetry correctness testing | NO | - |
| Server integration testing | NO | - |
| Offline and server failure testing | NO | - |
| Load testing | NO | - |
| Add-ons | ||
| Addon API required? | NO | - |
| Comprehensive API testing | NO | - |
| Permissions | YES | TBD |
| Testing with existing/popular addons | NO | - |
| Security | Security is in charge of Matt Wobensmith. We should contact his team to see if security testing is necessary for current feature. | |
| 3rd-party security review | YES | TBD |
| Privilege escalation testing | YES | TBD |
| Fuzzing | YES | TBD |
| Web Compatibility | depends on the feature | |
| Testing against target sites | YES | TBD |
| Survey of many sites for compatibility | YES | TBD |
| Interoperability | depends on the feature | |
| Common protocol/data format with other software: specification available. Interop testing with other common clients or servers. | YES | TBD |
| Coordinated testing/interop across the Firefoxes: Desktop, Android, iOS | NO | - |
| Interaction of this feature with other browser features | NO | - |
Test suite
Full Test suite - https://goo.gl/W3bmYm Smoke Test suite - https://goo.gl/W3bmYm Regression Test suite - https://goo.gl/W3bmYm
Bug Work
Meta bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1250244
Logged bugs ( blocking 1250244 )
21 Total; 0 Open (0%); 18 Resolved (85.71%); 3 Verified (14.29%);
Bug fix verification
| ID | Priority | Component | Assigned to | Summary | Status | Resolution | Target milestone |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15069 | P3 | Networking | jefft | File type url not correctly parsed and created | VERIFIED | FIXED | M13 |
1 Total; 0 Open (0%); 0 Resolved (0%); 1 Verified (100%);
Sign off
Criteria
Checklist
- All test cases should be executed
- Has sufficient automated test coverage (as measured by code coverage tools) - coordinate with RelMan
- All blockers, criticals must be fixed and verified or have an agreed-upon timeline for being fixed (as determined by engineering/RelMan/QA)
Results
Nightly testing(missed)
Merge to Beta Sign-off
List of OSes that will be covered by testing:
- Windows 10
- Windows 8.1
- Windows 7
- Link for the tests run - N/A
- Full Test suite - In progress
Checklist
| Exit Criteria | Status | Notes/Details |
|---|---|---|
| Testing Prerequisites (specs, use cases) | ||
| Testing Infrastructure setup | DONE | |
| Test Plan Creation | DONE | |
| Test Cases Creation | DONE | |
| Automation Coverage | ||
| Performance Testing | DONE | |
| All Defects Logged | ||
| Critical/Blockers Fixed and Verified | ||
| Metrics/Telemetry | ||
| Basic/Core functionality Nightly testing | ||
| QA mid-Nightly Signoff | Missed | |
| QA Nightly - Full Testing | Missed | |
| QA pre-Beta Signoff | Missed | |
| QA Beta - Full Testing | ||
| QA pre-Release Signoff | DONE | Email sent |
