Q8: Which method is used to prove that the infrastructure has been designed to cope with unplanned outages?
Answers
MAINTAINANCE OF PERFORMANCE FILES PATH
1 Introduction
Frame work components | Status | Target Dates |
Reporting mechanism 1. Marking test case as pass and fail in result file. 2. setting colour in result file | WIP (Work In Progress) | Target date to complete all these is 25th of August |
Read control data from excel Reading environmental data from excel file so that it can be run on different servers | WIP | |
Read from excel which test case to execute which or not | WIP | |
Error reporting User friendly message needs to log as error object | WIP | |
Recovery mechanism Functions which will bring application into base state if test fails at any point of time | To Initiate | |
Wrapper of different objects This has a very huge scope and will ongoing activity at beginning will code some common reading and setting text boxes, Selecting from list and combo and verify objects in page or not | To initiate | |
Common functions for reading context menu data sending keys from keyboard to application which can be used across applications. | To initiate | Up to end of august |
To read data elements from excel sheet not from QTP excel sheet where ever it is feasible | To initiate | Up to end of august will try to accommodate at priority |
Boundary value analysis of a button
Occasionally it may be difficult to even identify looping structures, especially when designing tests from only a black box test design approach. For example, in Window Xp a known defect appeared to allow a device name (LPT1, CON, etc.) as the base file name if the extension was appended to the base filename component in the Filename edit control (I'll talk more about this defect later.) A Windows Xp patch attempted to correct this defect; however classic boundary analysis testing easily revealed the defect was only partially fixed as illustrated in the steps below.