Currently, we execute Test Cases multiple times in a Release/PI. For example, we execute a test once with the story in an iteration, then later in the PI as part of Feature level regression. We like the idea of using Test Sets to represent these multiple rounds of test execution, but we also want to retain traceability to a feature. How can we tie Test Sets to our Features?
Hi Becky -
You might try creating a User Story as a child of the Feature, and using it as a "bridge" between Test artifacts and the Feature.
I wouldn't mind that at all but I do not see a way to tie a Test Set to a User Story. Did I miss it? I see a way to tie a Test Case to a single User Story, but not a Test Set. My goal is to be able to use the Test Set functionality because it can pull in the same test cases over and over and over as needed.
Sorry -- reading too fast... I don't know how to associate a Test Set/Folder to a work item...
Currently it is not possible in CA Agile Central to associate a TestSet with a Workitem. I would like to encourage you to enter this as a new topic on https://ideas.rallydev.com and then post a link to the idea here, to encourage other users to vote and comment...
We use test sets in exactly the same way and since the ability in application was lacking, we were forced to come up with business process to do this. We have a specific test set name format like "Test USXXXX: <name of user story>" and in this way we "associate" the test set to the requirement that is being tested.
RebeccaRabe1362003 & KarenChaney1356543,Spurred by the "No one else has this question", I have to say that we DID have this question, back before we got all our working practices in place, working around the lack.
I believe Test Sets are a close cousin of User Stories, and yet where User Stories can contain other User Stories, there currently isn't any way to make them contain or be associated with Test Sets. But it might not be too technically demanding to achieve that?
We have to be careful about a Work Item that has been Accepted showing up later with fails against it. But if you have a more sophisticated understanding of the serial re-use of the Test Set (and can express that to your auditors and any stakeholders with access to the system but only partial understanding of what everything means) it should be something you can work with just fine.
It may be too late for my organisation without implementing a major project, but if you 'ideas' it, I'll vote for it on principle!