Configuration Vs Verification Testing

[StevenBlake]

Hi all, I'm looking at the testing phase of my first automated process and i've got a couple of general questions surrounding Configuration Testing and Verification Testing. My understanding is as follows: Configuration Testing: Making sure the process works as per the solution document Verification Testing: Making sure that the process meets the original requirements I've been checking some exisiting test plans covering both Config and verification and they look to be roughly the same. Also, if the Solution Design Document is written with the requirements in mind and subsequently signed off by the business, why are both phases needed? and how are they going to be different? It strikes me that I'm spending a lot of time duplicating work. I'd sooner write a test plan covering all pathways through my process, sign off and then pass it to the business for UAT. I'm sure I'm missing something and I'd appreciate a little clarification. Many thanks in advance Steve

[John__Carter]

Hi Steve - I can see where you are coming from. In basic terms Config Testing is to check that what you've built actually works and doesn't fall over, ie is it mechanically sound. Verification Testing is to check that what you've built does the job it is supposed to do, ie does it meet the requirements as you understand them. For example, you can have a perfectly running process that does not cater for all case types, or you could have all scenarios covered but fragile object logic means the process breaks down often.

[StevenBlake]

Thanks John, that helps 🙂

[StevenBlake]

Thanks John, that helps 🙂

[sharma]

Is there any way where automation can be used for testing? Have anyone used test Rigs?

[Anonymous]

H Team, any One have the Test Case Tracker Document. Please If have attach that one.

[John__Carter]

https://portal.blueprism.com/resources/methodology/process-delivery-met…