October 29th, 2015 by inflectra
After reading various best practice documents from
various customers using Spira and reading the Spira manuals from top to
bottom again, I now understand the disconnect. Our company follows a
Defect-centric development and test process whereas SpiraTest is designed
to be Requirements-centric. This is why we keep hollering that we need
to group Defects in a release and generate test sets from Defects. This
is probably also why you keep scratching your head. We don't care if
requirements have been met or not. Our process ties together Defects and
Features into a release and then runs test against them. The functional
units have paired tests and then we look at Defect coverage instead of Requirements
coverage.
So, where am I going with this diatribe? Well, just
that I don't believe that there is a test tool on the market that
follows a Defect-centric approach. This means that we go back to
spreadsheets or learn to adapt. I am voting that we learn to adapt and
adopt a Requirements-centric development and test approach. Our
questions related to generating test sets based on defects and out
frustration with the tools inability to handle hierarchical test sets
(needed for paring tests) just evaporate.
Ask an Inflectra expert:
And if you have any questions, please email or call us at +1 (202) 558-6885
To ensure your satisfaction, we provide product support free with every subscription purchase, which guarantees you unlimited access to our knowledge base, customer forums and helpdesk. Review our support policy.
The Inflectra knowledge base includes a wide variety of helpful support articles written by Inflectra's customer support specialists.
Discover great tips, discussions, and technical solutions from fellow customers and Inflectra's technical experts.
If you can't find the answer you're looking for, please get in touch with us: over email, phone, or online.