1. Description of the plan
1. Product introduction
The task of this project is to test and evaluate two online learning platforms. The test product is BearingPoint platform, and the competing product is Xuetangxing. Both applications are mainly online learning websites. They are user-oriented and have very similar functions. They belong to competitive products and are very suitable for this comparative test work.
2. PSP table
| PSP2.1 | PSP stage | Estimated time (minutes) | Actual time (minutes) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning | plan | 20 | 30 |
| Estimate | Estimate how long the task will take | 20 | 30 |
| Development | develop | 290 | 170 |
| Analysis | demand analysis | 30 | 10 |
| Design Spec | Generate design documentation | 10 | 10 |
| Design Review | Design Review | 30 | 30 |
| Coding Standard | code specification | 20 | 20 |
| Design | specific design | 20 | 20 |
| Coding | specific code | 30 | 60 |
| Code Review | code review | 50 | 10 |
| Test | test | 100 | 10 |
| Reporting | Report | 80 | 80 |
| Test Report | testing report | 30 | 40 |
| Size Measurement | Computational workload | 40 | 30 |
| Postmortem | Summarize | 10 | 10 |
2. Description of requirements
1. Functional module division diagram
BearingPoint platform:
School Online:
2. The functional modules that I am responsible for
I am responsible for testing the course content learning and viewing modules. The specific functions have been circled in the picture above.
3. Test description
1. Design ideas
In the process of learning the classroom content, you need to answer the pre-class quiz, view and download course videos and courseware. The following methods can be used:
(1) Equivalence class division method: The test is to submit the answers to the pre-class quiz under normal circumstances, and to view the course videos and courseware and other functions.
(2) Boundary value analysis method: The test is to submit the answers of the pre-class quiz without selecting the answer, and whether there will be problems when browsing the course content in some extreme environments (such as IE8).
(3) Scenario test: Test course video adjustment, courseware browsing and other functions according to the user's usage scenario.
2. Select a test management tool
After discussion, we finally chose the Zentao test management tool ( http://www.zentao.net )
How to use: http://www.zentao.net/book/zentaopmshelp/38.html
3. Test execution process
Test requirements:
Test case:
Screenshot of the process:
Screenshot of the testing process of BearingPoint platform:
(1) View the overall course content of the test
(2) View and test the content of a unit course
(3) View the content of a certain section of the test
Screenshot of the online test process of the school:
Defect list:
Exported requirements file:
Exported test case file:
Exported defect list file:
Fourth, the conclusion statement
In terms of viewing the course content, BearingPoint has many imperfections. The biggest flaw is that the course video cannot be played, which is a very serious functional defect. Secondly, BearingPoint's course content display is not intuitive and friendly enough. The interface Poor aesthetics. Xuetangxing sometimes videos are slow to load.
In general, XuetangX's course content and functions are more complete and mature than BearingPoint.
5. Job description
Through our group work, the divided modules have been determined. I am responsible for viewing the course content modules, and the contribution in the group is divided into 0.30
6. Special test: front-end performance test
1. Test tool:
YSlow: A professional front-end performance evaluation tool developed by Yahoo ( http://yslow.org/ )
2. Test Design
Use the test tool to observe the performance data of the course content page, judge and analyze the performance according to the data, and put forward suggestions for improvement
3. Test process
(1) BearingPoint platform:
Tested page:
Ratings given by the test tool:
(2) School Online
Tested page:
Ratings given by the test tool:
4. Test Analysis
The performance problems of the two platforms are relatively consistent. There are problems such as not using a certain CDN network to improve the loading speed of static resources, not loading JS files after the page is loaded, and not compressing JS files.
5. Summary of work
In this advanced task, I learned some basic knowledge about front-end performance optimization, and also learned about the use of some front-end performance testing tools, which are very useful for my future development.
6. Job Description
According to the actual situation of the completion of the advanced task and the discussion results of the group, my group contribution in this advanced task is divided into 0.7
7. Homework impressions
After three assignments, my most intuitive feeling is that the actual coding time of each assignment is not very long, and the main time is spent on writing test cases and writing documents.
I have the following suggestions for future courses:
(1). The complexity of coding can be appropriately reduced or some ready-made projects can be tested. The coding complexity of the first WC assignment is relatively high, and I feel that the coding difficulty of the second assignment is more appropriate.
(2) Reduce the number of test cases required by the job. Some jobs themselves have relatively simple logic, so there is no need to write so many test cases
(3). To reduce the complexity of document writing, it is recommended to give a document template and appropriately reduce the length of the document