Join 34,000+ subscribers and receive articles from our blog about software quality, testing, QA and security.
 

Search for cases within Steps fields


#1

Hi,

I’ve been seeing posts dating back years about this particular problem with searching within steps field.
We really want to start using the separate steps within the result feature that appeared recently on 5.2 (I believe), but can’t really do this without the ability to search for test cases using the text inside the steps field (we have above 500 test cases… guessing where things might be every time we need something in particular is not really an option).
Any idea when the search will start working for steps?

Thanks!!


#2

Hi Lucila,

Thanks for your posting! The steps have been available for a few years and 5.2 “just” introduced a better way to use separated steps and the regular steps on a case by case basis (with case templates). The search doesn’t have support for separated steps but very few teams would see this as a blocker to use separated steps. Separated steps are great for structured/formal tests that outline each or most steps. They also allow you to assign a status/result per step on the Add Result dialog:

Cheers,
Tobias


#3

Hi Tobias,

Thanks for your fast response.
The search might be a blocker for us for using steps. I tried to implement them on some of our test cases (like 20 out of 500) and we already have had trouble with maintenance, where we searched for all test cases that mentioned a feature that was being taken out, and we missed a couple, which in turn cost us some regression time with a team trying to find things that were no longer there.

Anyway, the question remains: when can we expect to get the search implemented for steps, so we can start using steps? We are going to revamp our test case suite soon and it would be great to time it so that the search can be used safely during maintenance.

Thanks!
Lula


#4

Hi Lula,

Thanks for the additional details. We would usually recommend a more structured approach. For example, one approach that’s often used is to use sections to group cases by functional area or features. Another approach is to use additional custom fields to add additional context details. For example, many teams use a custom field of type multi-select to “tag” test cases and a tag can also be a feature or other important attributes. A multi-select custom field would also allow you to search for your cases (on the case repository or run pages):

The same search/filter options are also available when creating test plans & runs via the Select Cases dialog and this is much faster than using the generic text search to find test cases.

http://docs.gurock.com/testrail-userguide/howto-fields

Cheers,
Tobias


#5

Hi Tobias!

We are already doing most (if not all) of the suggestions above, and that does help in many cases. However that approach is not good for our more normal “test rail use case” where we search for test cases that may be related or name a specific functionality, but that functionality is not the main goal of the test, or searching for specific parameter values that only get mentioned lets say in passing on a test case which checks the functionality that’s related to that parameter value.

The thing is we also use test rail as a bit of a requirement repository (it’s just nicer to deal with test rail cases than our MANY story tickets in Jira :wink: … it gets messy otherwise). So we find ourselves searching for maybe a small mention to a small thing inside a seemingly unrelated test case, very often.

And since I saw a couple of year old requests for this and you said it was on the cards that’s why I was asking if there is a plan, and when we may be seeing this search happen.

Thanks and happy holidays!!
Lula


#6

Hi Lula,

Thanks for the additional details! In this case, it might make sense to add an additional “Description” or similar text box to the test case that contains a description (e.g. with keywords, important functionality to be tested etc.). This field would automatically be included in the search and would make it easier to find such test cases. The actual test implementation could still use the separated steps control and the description would be for a high-level overview and for search purposes.

Cheers,
Tobias


#7

Hi Tobias, and happy new year!!

Unfortunately, we did try keywords and such, but it’s proven ineffective in the past.

So, based on your answers in this thread, am I correct in assuming that the Steps field will never be included in the search, or at least there are no plans to fix this any time soon?

Thanks!
Lula


#8

Hi Lula,

Thanks for your reply. There are no short-term plans as of now but there are plans to improve the search in general (better full-text search, indexing, performance improvements) and we would certainly look into supporting the steps field as well at the same time.

Cheers,
Tobias