How to handle testing on a legacy version?

[Philippe Grégoire]

Let's say that feature A was released in version 1.0 of my platform. It was tested, and I have the associated Test Execution which shows the state of the test at that version, which only has one step.

Now let's say in version 1.1 feature A evolves into something different and the associated test evolves as well to now have 2 steps. I will test feature A in 1.1, get a new Execution and it will show the 2 executed steps.

Then we need to do a service release of 1.1 and I want to retest Feature A _as it was_ at the time of 1.1 (a single step). Does XRay provide a functionality to do this?

[Brian Walker]

Given above situation, I would prefer to clone my execution which I have already created at the time of version 1.0 and execute again. In my test management app, I can easily clone entire Test Run and tagged with version 1.1 and update the latest execution result.

[Philippe Grégoire]

Thanks for the answer - I can in fact clone Test Executions in XRay, but Test Executions contain Test Runs. It is those Test Runs that contain a snapshot of the test as it was at the moment of execution.

It doesn't seem like it is possible to clone a Test Run - if I clone a test execution the runs within reflect the current version of the test, not the version of the cloned run.

It looks like the only way to go is to clone the existing tests for each major released version in case we ever do need to produce another service release for that version.

[Brian Walker]

Hey, I am using the QMetry for Jira so in that I can easily clone the Test Run. 

I agree with your solution as well but if your previous version of the test will not be used in future then it will increase the number of tickets in Jira. 

[Philippe Grégoire]

Yes, I agree it's a suboptimal solution but given that we have major releases only twice a year I think we can live with it for a few years.

We just moved to XRay in the last year and so far have been satisfied so I'm not considering changing, although the functionality you outline would have solved that particular issue in an optimal manner.

Thanks again for your help.