basic task
1. Program Description
1.1. The comparative test products selected by this group are Baici Chopping and Scallop Words
1.2. Test schedule
project |
Content description |
estimated time (minute) |
actual time (minute) |
Planning |
|
10 | 15 |
· Estimate |
· Estimate how much time the task will take |
10 | 15 |
Testing Design |
|
200 | 260 |
· Analysis |
· Requirements and test requirements analysis |
60 | 80 |
· Design Test Cases |
· Design test cases |
140 | 180 |
Testing Environment |
|
30 | 40 |
Testing Implementation |
|
40 | 60 |
· Test |
· Execute tests |
40 | 60 |
Reporting |
|
50 | 50 |
· Test Report |
· testing report |
30 | 30 |
· Postmortem & Process Improvement Plan |
· Summarize after the fact and propose a process improvement plan |
20 | 20 |
total |
330 | 425 |
2. Demand
1.1. Functional module division
1.1. The function module division of Baici Chopping:
1.1.2. Scallop word function module division:
1.2. The functional modules I am responsible for
Extended function module (1. Word volume test. 2. Post reading)
Since there are many differences in the division of extended function modules between Baicijian and scallop words, I chose two sub-modules that are common and directly related to word learning. Post reading is the "small lecture hall" in Baici Zhan and the "learning activities" in scallop words.
3. Test
3.1. Design ideas of test cases
Based on the scenario testing method taught in the classroom, the business flow diagrams of the two sub-modules of the two APPs can be made separately:
3.1.1. Business flow chart of scallop word volume test:
Based on this business flow chart, a typical scenario is constructed with an independent path method to design test cases:
Scenes | path | feasibility | expected output |
1 | elementary stream | feasible | Display test results and return |
2 | Basic Stream + Alternative Stream 1 | feasible | Return to the main interface |
3 | Basic Stream + Alternative Stream 2 + Alternative Stream 1 | feasible | Share successfully and then return to the main interface |
3.1.2. The business flow chart of the word volume test of Baicijian:
Based on this business flow chart, a typical scenario is constructed with an independent path method to design test cases:
Scenes | path | feasibility | expected output |
1 | elementary stream | feasible | Display test results and return |
2 | Basic Stream + Alternative Stream 1 | feasible | Display test results and return |
3 | Basic Stream + Alternative Stream 1 + Alternative Stream 2 | feasible | Display test results and return |
4 | Basic Stream + Alternative Stream 1 + Alternative Stream 3 + Alternative Stream 2 | feasible | 显示测试结果然后再测再显示测试结果然后返回 |
5 | 基本流+备选流1+备选流4 | 可行 | 返回到主界面 |
6 | 基本流+备选流4+备选流5 | 可行 | 分享成功后返回 |
3.1.3扇贝帖子阅读:
基于这个业务流程图,用独立路径的方法构造典型场景来设计测试用例:
场景 | 路径 | 可行性 | 预期输出 |
1 | 基本流 | 可行 | 阅读完文章然后返回 |
2 | 基本流+备选流1 | 可行 | 阅读完文章然后返回 |
3 | 基本流+备选流2 | 可行 | 返回到主界面 |
4 | 基本流+备选流1+备选流3 | 可行 | 阅读完文章然后返回 |
5 | 基本流+备选流4 | 可行 | 分享成功后阅读完文章然后返回 |
6 | 基本流+备选流3+备选流5 | 可行 | 完成评论后阅读完文章然后返回 |
7 | 基本流+备选流7 | 可行 | 点赞成功后阅读完文章然后返回 |
8 | 基本流+备选流7+备选流8 | 可行 | 点赞成功后选择其他文章阅读然后返回 |
9 | 基本流+备选流6 | 不可行 |
备选流6需要支付金额,做这个没有受益,就不做亏本的测试了。
3.1.4百词斩帖子阅读:
基于这个业务流程图,用独立路径的方法构造典型场景来设计测试用例:
场景 | 路径 | 可行性 | 预期输出 |
1 | 基本流 | 可行 | 阅读完文章然后返回 |
2 | 基本流+备选流1 | 可行 | 阅读完文章然后返回 |
3 | 基本流+备选流2 | 可行 | 返回到主界面 |
4 | 基本流+备选流1+备选流3 | 可行 | 分享成功后阅读完文章然后返回 |
5 | 基本流+备选流4 | 可行 | 评论成功后阅读完文章然后返回 |
6 | 基本流+备选流1+备选流5 | 可行 | 申请发送后阅读完文章然后返回 |
7 | 基本流+备选流6 | 可行 | 点赞成功后阅读完文章然后返回 |
8 | 基本流+备选流6+备选流7 | 可行 | 点赞成功后收藏后阅读完文章然后返回 |
3.2. 运行界面截图
3.2.1.扇贝单词单词量测试
3.2.2.百词斩单词量测试
3.2.3.扇贝单词帖子阅读
3.2.4.百词斩帖子阅读
3.3. 测试管理工具
https://www.testin.cn 云测试平台
3.4. 测试管理工具使用的关键界面截图(如测试用例导出、缺陷导出等)
测试用例:
缺陷:
4.结论说明。
4.1单词量测试模块
扇贝单词的单词量测试可以逆推其逻辑与算法过于简单(且其测试结果都是一百的整数倍),测试结果准确率不高;而百词斩的测试逻辑和算法科学性应该更高。
就其反馈来说,百词斩的反馈过于复杂,严重影响用户单词量测试的体验与发挥,即使算法科学性更高,测试结果也不够准。
总的来说在这个模块,这两个APP都做得不够好。用户体验很差。
4.2帖子阅读模块
扇贝单词的精选(帖子阅读)基本能让用户满意,除了评论成功得不到有效反馈,问题还不算严重。
百词斩的小讲堂(帖子阅读)用户界面不错,但是我无法评论,我也得不到有效反馈,不知道无法评论的原因,给用户恶心的体验。
5.工作说明