QA/A11y Windows touchscreen

Revision History

This section describes the modifications that have been made to this wiki page. A new row has been completed each time the content of this document is updated (small corrections for typographical errors do not need to be recorded). The description of the modification contains the differences from the prior version, in terms of what sections were updated and to what extent.

Date	Version	Author	Description
12/13/2016	1.0	Grover Wimberly IV	Created first draft

Overview

Purpose

Testing accessibility features with e10s for touch screen devices using Windows operating system.

Scope

This wiki details the testing that will be performed for the A11y/e10s Windows touchscreen feature. It defines the overall testing requirements and provides an integrated view of the project test activities. Its purpose is to document:

• What will be tested
• How testing will be performed

Ownership

Product contact:
Erin Lancaster (IRC: )
Aaron Klotz (IRC: )

User Experience contact:
[mailto: ] (IRC: )
[mailto: ] (IRC: )

Engineering contact:
[mailto:] (IRC: )
[mailto:] (IRC: )
[mailto:] (IRC: )
[mailto:] (IRC: )
[mailto:] (IRC: )
[mailto:] (IRC: )

QA contact:
[mailto:] (IRC: )
[mailto:] (IRC: )

QA:
PM for QA team - Rares Bologa (IRC: RaresB)
QA Lead - Grover Wimberly IV (IRC: Grover-QA)
QA - Kanchan Kumari (IRC: )
QA - Justin Williams (IRC: )
QA - Stefan Georgiev (IRC: )
QA - Abe Masresha (IRC: )

Feature email address: []

Testing summary

Scope of Testing

In Scope

The scope of our testing is the A11y/e10s accessibility and its functionality.

• Integration: Verify the integration with the current browser functionalities and UI;
• Functionality: Basic and advanced functionality to be verified according to the existing requirements;
• Usability: Intuitive and how users interact with the feature;

Requirements for testing

Environments

Testing will be performed on following OSes:

• Windows 10 (x64)

Test Strategy

Test Objectives

This section details the progression test objectives that will be covered. Please note that this is at a high level. For large projects, a suite of test cases would be created which would reference directly back to this master. This could be documented in bullet form or in a table similar to the one below.

Ref	Function	Test Objective	Evaluation Criteria	Test Type	Owners
1	Install NVDA	Verify program is correctly installed		Manual	Eng Team
2	e10s Accessibility and Web Pages	Verify web pages are functioning correctly with changes to preferences and installed programs.		Manual	Eng Team
3	Uninstall/Teardown	Verify any changes are reverted and browser returns to default	1. Uninstall NVDA and related add-ons and reset preferences 2. Verify that the browser UI returned to default	Manual	Eng Team

Builds

TBD

Test Execution Schedule

The following table identifies the anticipated testing period available for test execution.

Project phase	Start Date	End Date
Start project	08/05/2015	-
Study documentation/specs received from developers	07/04/2016	-
QA - Test plan creation	08/02/2016	-
QA - Test cases/Env preparation	-	-
QA - Nightly Testing	-	-
QA - Aurora Testing
QA - Beta Testing
Release Date

Testing Tools

Detail the tools to be used for testing, for example see the following table:

Process	Tool
Test plan creation	Mozilla wiki
Test case creation	TestRail
Test case execution	TestRail
Bugs management	Bugzilla/GitHub (mainly)

Status

Overview

• Track the dates and build number where feature was released to Nightly
  
• Track the dates and build number where feature was merged to Aurora
  
• Track the dates and build number where feature was merged to Release/Beta
  

Risk analysis

Risk areas	Mitigation
External dependencies on experiments	We should do an end-to-end test to see how experiments are integrated and behave when they are installed from Test Pilot.

References

• Test Pilot Wiki
• Meeting Notes
• Test Pilot site or add-on
• Experiment Pipeline
• Test Pilot/2016Q3
• Test Pilot/2016Q4
• Mockups - late June 2016
• Test Pilot Trello board

Testcases

Overview

• Summary of testing scenarios

Test Areas

Test Areas	Covered	Details
Private Window	Yes
Multi-Process Enabled	Yes
Multi-process Disabled	Yes
Theme (high contrast)	Yes
UI
Mouse-only operation	Yes
Keyboard-only operation	No
Display (HiDPI)	Yes	Testing on 4k resolution monitor.
Interraction (scroll, zoom)	Yes
Usable with a screen reader	No	e.g. with NVDA
Usability and/or discoverability testing	?	Is this feature user friendly
Help/Support
Help/support interface required	TBD	Make sure link to support/help page exist and is easy reachable.
Support documents planned(written)	TBD	Make sure support documents are written and are correct.
Install/Upgrade
Feature upgrades/downgrades data as expected	Yes
Does sync work across upgrades	Yes	The add-on is not kept after sync on another device for the same Fx account.
Requires install testing	Yes	The add-on can be installed from Test Pilot homepage or trough ".xpi" file.
Affects first-run or onboarding	Yes	The add-on displays a notification at startup when there are new experiments available.
Does this affect partner builds? Partner build testing		yes/no options, add comment with details about who will lead testing
Enterprise		Raise up the topic to developers to see if they are expecting to work different on ESR builds
Enterprise administration
Network proxies/autoconfig
ESR behavior changes
Locked preferences
Data Monitoring
Temporary or permanent telemetry monitoring	?	Testing was not conducted by SV QA Eng team.
Telemetry correctness testing	?	Testing was not conducted by SV QA Eng team.
Server integration testing	?	Testing was not conducted by SV QA Eng team.
Offline and server failure testing	?
Load testing	?	Testing was not conducted by SV QA Eng team.
Add-ons		If add-ons are available for testing feature, or is current feature will affect some add-ons, then API testing should be done for the add-on.
Addon API required?	?
Comprehensive API testing	?
Permissions	?
Testing with existing/popular addons	Yes	Tested with other experiments installed.
Security		Security is in charge of Matt Wobensmith. We should contact his team to see if security testing is necessary for current feature.
3rd-party security review	?
Privilege escalation testing	?
Fuzzing	?
Web Compatibility		depends on the feature
Testing against target sites	No
Survey of many sites for compatibility	No
Interoperability		depends on the feature
Common protocol/data format with other software: specification available. Interop testing with other common clients or servers.
Coordinated testing/interop across the Firefoxes: Desktop, Android, iOS	?
Interaction of this feature with other browser features	Yes

Test suite

• Full Test suite - Test Pilot Full Functional (TestRail)
• Smoke Test suite -* Regression Test suite - TBD

Bug Work

• Tracking bug
• Found issues list - QA Eng found issues
• Bugzilla logged bugs - TBD

Sign off

Criteria

Check list

• All test cases should be executed
• Has sufficient automated test coverage (as measured by code coverage tools) - coordinate with RelMan
• All blockers, criticals must be fixed and verified or have an agreed-upon timeline for being fixed (as determined by engineering/RelMan/QA)

Results

Nightly testing

• Full Functional & Smoke testing - TestRail run results

Merge to Aurora Sign-off
List of OSes that will be covered by testing

• Link for the tests run - TBD
  • Full Test suite - TBD

Checklist

Exit Criteria	Status	Notes/Details
Testing Prerequisites (specs, use cases)	[DONE]
Testing Infrastructure setup	No
Test Plan Creation	[DONE]
Test Cases Creation	[DONE]
Full Functional Tests Execution	[IN PROGRESS]
Smoke Tests Execution
Automation Coverage
Performance Testing
All Defects Logged
Critical/Blockers Fixed and Verified
Daily Status Report (email/etherpad statuses/ gdoc with results)
Metrics/Telemetry		N/A
QA Signoff - Nightly Release		Email to be sent
QA Aurora - Full Testing
QA Signoff - Aurora Release		Email to be sent
QA Beta - Full Testing
QA Signoff - Beta Release		Email to be sent