Hi Everyone,
I am starting a series of posts related to my job search. In several of my interview I have been given various tasks related to QA work. The following is the first such request I was given a few years ago. This sort of request has become the norm in interviews of late. This is a test plan for a toaster that was requested by a company in the silicon valley. I will try to find which one but for now here it is. I hope it can be of some use to you.
Toaster Test plan
Version
# |
Implemented
By
|
Revision
Date
|
|||
1.0
|
Jim Rickel
|
4/17/2014
|
1.
Introduction:
Through this document I will outline our strategy for testing a standard
toaster. The goal is to list the broad
areas of testing here, including general test descriptions. Further I will be documenting dependencies
and resources the test testing team will require for successful validation.
1.1.
In scope items:
We will be doing validation of toaster and any documentation provided
for that toaster. We are making the
assumption that this is a standard two slot toaster; with a lowering and rising
design. We are assuming the target
market is the US for this product. Further
we assume this to only be available in a single all metal housing, without
variation.
1.2.
Out of scope items: All aspects of the box and packaging are
assumed to be out of scope for our validation.
Marketing will be responsible for all advertising including copy proof
of their materials. We are also
assuming no responsibility for power outside of the wall socket.
2.
Required Resources: The following is a list of materials the
quality team will require to complete a full pass of the functional test cases.
2.1.
A large cross section of breads, toaster
pastries and frozen waffles. This will
assure depth of test coverage.
2.2.
Butter
2.3.
Metal knives
2.4.
Volt meter
2.5.
Standard wall outlet configured to the US 110
voltage.
2.6.
A variety of foreign adapters and a set of
matching wall outlet. See http://www.voltagevalet.com/outlets.html
for a list of outlet varieties.
2.7.
High wattage microwave.
3.
Test Approach:
As this is an electric appliance our goal is to first validate the safety
of the toaster though a series of “smoke” validations. Testing will then move onto a functional
verification of the toaster. We will
then benchmark the toaster against others on the market and finally execute a
series of destructive tests to assure structural quality. All testing will assume the removal of
packaging stickers prior to execution.
3.1.
Safety and Smoke testing: This aspect of testing will assure we have
created a toaster that is in fact safe to own and operate. Localization testing with regard to adapters
and non US power outlets will also be included in this testing.
3.1.1. Verify the item can be plugged in safely. Cord and toaster do not become unsafely hot.
3.1.2. Verify bread can be toasted safely. Bread does not ignite; cord and toaster do
not become unsafely hot.
3.1.3. Verify bread can be toasted to maximum
darkness. Bread does not ignite; cord
and toaster do not become unsafely hot.
3.1.4. Verify
toaster blows fuse when a metal knife is inserted into the operating
toaster. Toaster should become inactive rather
than passing current though knife
3.1.5. Overload the circuit with toaster and high
wattage microwave. Bread does not
ignite; cord and toaster do not become unsafely hot. Verify toaster continues
to operate safely after circuit is reset.
3.1.6. Verify operation of toaster with foreign
adapters and wall sockets. The following
matrix should be completed.
Adapter
|
Pass /Fail
|
PBC-1
|
|
GUB
|
|
GUR
|
|
GUK
|
|
GUI
|
|
GUS
|
|
GUL
|
|
PCC-1
|
|
GUC
|
|
PDC-1
|
|
GUD
|
|
PEC-1
|
|
GUE
|
|
PFC-1
|
|
GUF
|
|
GUZ
|
|
3.2.
Functional testing: After we have completed verifying the toaster
is safe we will begin functional validation.
Here we are assuming toasting/ warming and clean up to be the primary
functionality of the toaster. We will
also include a set of incorrect use test cases in this section.
3.2.1. Verify toaster evenly toasts a slice of bread
from center to crust.
3.2.2. Verify two slices from a loaf toasted with a
similar darkness setting are toasted to the same degree.
3.2.3. Verify toaster darkness setting. We will be toasting a sign slice of bread all
from a single loaf each with a different darkness setting. Testing will start with the lightest setting
and move the darkness setting one click or millimeter (dependent on the
internal potentiometer design) per slice.
The expected outcome would be a gradient change in the darkness each
slice is toasted.
3.2.4. Set toaster darkness to max and begin
toasting. Eject the toast before
toasting completion. Finally start
toasting a fresh slice. Verify the
second slice toasts to full darkness.
3.2.5. Verify the toasting of waffles in the
toaster. Expected outcome should match
results returned with bread.
3.2.6. Verify the toasting of evenly divided bagel
halves. Toaster must accommodate this
size of food item. Expected outcome
should match results returned with bread
3.2.7. Verify the warming of pop tart brand toaster
pastries. Internal jam should become
warm and viscous after toasting. Fire
does not occur.
3.2.8. Verify the warming of breaded fish patty in
toaster. Oil release should not catch
fire.
3.2.9. Verify you can open the crumb door. Verify toaster cleans easily and
completely. Poor cleaning could result
in bad reviews which will negatively impact sales.
3.2.10.
Verify the toasting of buttered bread does not
result in fire. Verify clean up as well.
3.2.11.
Verify the toasting of Amish friendship bread or
other bread containing chocolate does not melt chocolate into internal working
of toaster.
3.2.12.
Verify name brand of company is correctly
spelled and with correctly logo and font
3.2.13.
Verify model number is correctly marked
somewhere on the toaster.
3.3.
Benchmark validation: In this phase of testing we will be
validating our toaster against other toasters currently on the market. We are going to make the assumption that only
our own pervious toaster models will be included for this verification. For this benchmarking we will want to include
competitor’s toasters, our own previous model of toaster and our current model
of toaster. This section will not include test cases but rather look for
results in the form of a comparison matrix.
|
Darkness settings
|
Slot Dimensions
|
Electrical draw during operation
|
Electrical draw at rest
|
Current model
|
|
|
|
|
Previous model
|
|
|
|
|
Competitor 1
|
|
|
|
|
Competitor 2
|
|
|
|
|
Competitor 3
|
|
|
|
|
3.4.
Destructive Testing: Our goal with destructive testing is to
ensure the product can stand up to some degree of mishandling during its life
time.
3.4.1. Verify
the toaster can withstand a fall from a height of three feet and continue
operation.
3.4.2. Verify
the three feet fall test can be repeated at least five times.
3.4.3. Verify
the fall test while the toaster is plugged in.
Plug should not be adversely affected.
3.4.4. Verify
the plugged in fall test can be executed at least five times.
3.4.5. Stuff
bread slots completely full with bread ramming break down to further fill the
slot. Verify extended toasting does not
result in fire.
3.4.6. Verify
toaster can remain plugged into the wall socket for a month. Verify fire does not occur.
3.5.
Documentation Verification: In this section of validation we will be
validating the documentation provided by the tech publications team. Our goal is not to evaluate the grammar of
the text but rather look for factual and formatting errors.
3.5.1. Verify
the text of the documentation is free from spelling errors.
3.5.2. Verify
the text is correct with regard to the operation of the toaster.
3.5.3. Verify
all phone numbers with the documentation by calling each.
3.5.4. Verify
online documentation matches printed documentation that is to be included with
the toaster.
3.5.5. Verify
all photos in the documentation include photos or representations of this
current model of toaster.
4.
Entrance criteria: This will just need to be the toaster with
some level of mechanical and electric functionality, it should be able to
produce heat from the heating elements and the mechanism to raise and lower
should be functional.
5.
Exit criteria:
Safety and functional test cases passed.
Documentation tests should be passed but sign off is fine if product
owner wishes. Benchmarking must be
complete. Destructive testing should be
run but is not of a pass / fail nature.
6.
Deliverables: The following items the Quality
team recognizes as their responsibility to provide.
·
Final test plan document
·
Detailed test cases.
·
Daily bug triage report or alternatively this could be represented by
Scrum daily burn down report
·
Final sign off report for functional testing
7.
Risks: As
always the Quality team is a downstream team that does not control when a
testable toaster is delivered. Should
engineering or tech publications teams be delayed in delivering to the Quality
team then the final testing will be delayed.
8.
Milestones
·
Toaster product handed off for testing from
engineering
·
Toaster passes safety verification
·
Toaster passes functional verification
·
Toaster destructive tests completed with
acceptable results
·
Toaster benchmarking complete
·
Documentation handed off for testing
·
Documentation verification
9.
Schedule: This will be determined by SDLC style,
though that said scrum is probably not a wise choice for development of a
toaster. Validation of documentation
and toaster product can be performed in parallel depending on resources. Benchmarking should only need to wait on
safety verification of the toaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment