Exploratory Testing and Defect Reporting on fixthis.stqm-31282.com.au

This assignment presents an exploratory testing exercise conducted on a defect registry system using Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. The tester focused on exploring the 'Defect registry' process, aiming to determine its suitability for defect management. The testing session was structured around the ET01 charter, with emphasis on menu tabs, search box functionality, dashboard menu, and user interaction. The report includes a breakdown of time spent on setup, test execution, bug investigation, and an analysis of planned versus opportunistic testing. Several bugs were identified, including issues with task list updates, search box functionality discrepancies between browsers, dashboard user controls, and user interaction problems such as page reloads with non-alphanumeric key presses. The document concludes with a manual defect register detailing each bug, its environment, and steps to reproduce, providing a comprehensive overview of the system's defects.

Tester ID
Task statistics
Session setup - Percent of session duration spent on setup
For the testing of the application we used two browsers google chrome and Mozilla
FireFox browsers on our system. In acquiring and installation of the browsers and setting the
setup we spend almost 45 minutes which is almost 20% of the total time for completing the
assignment.
Test execution - Percent of session duration spent looking for problems. Bug investigation
and reporting - Percent of session duration spent investigating problems.
As the allotted time for the testing of the application was 60 minutes and the
complete process of the creating the charter and severity report took more 180 minutes.
Thus, it can be stated that in this process it took 50% of the total time for preparing the
assignment.
Planned vs Opportunity – the percentage of time spent following the charter vs.
investigating something else that was not part of the charter.
For the tasks according to the charter we invested 20% of the total to detect the
bugs in the application and 10% of time is spend in finding the features that can be
beneficial for the users of the application.
Bugs
Id Short description
1 Checking the functionality of the different menu tabs to
complete different intended use cases.
2 Testing the Search box functionality in the task list page.
3 Testing the dashboard menu of the application.

4 Testing the user interaction with the application
Appendix 1 – Manual defect register
Student name Student number Student email
address
[please fill] [Please fill] [Please fill]
Project Exploring bugs of an application on
fixthis.stqm-31282.com.au
commencement date [please fill]
ID 1
Summary The functionality of the different menu tabs to complete
different intended use cases.
Environmen
t
The operating system in this test was the windows 10, and
used browsers were Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox.
Description When the application is opened on the browser, it
shows a list of tickets created by users but for a user session the
list is not updated after any insertion operation.

Screen
Grabs
Short
description related to
the defect description
The dash board contains the updated number of tickets
created in the session as well as in other sessions by other users.
Where as in case of using the “Task List” tab ono the landing
page does not provide a full list of tickets which is confusing for
the user.

Student name Student number Student email
address
[Please fill] [please fill] [please fill]
Project Exploring bugs of an application on
fixthis.stqm-31282.com.au
commencement date [please fill]
ID 2
Summary Testing the Search box functionality in the task list page.
Environment The operating system in this test was the windows 10,
and used browsers were Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox.
Description As search boxes are intended to find tickets that are
related to the search string provided in the search box.
Screen Grabs

Short
description related to
the defect description
For the search box functionality, it is found that Filter
option works fine on the Firefox browser whereas on chrome it
displays “No result found” on the page. In fire fox browser the
results are displayed matching with the string on the other hand
while trying the same it does not display any result.

Student name Student number Student email
address
[Please fill] [please fill] [please fill]
Project Exploring bugs of an application on
fixthis.stqm-31282.com.au
commencement date [please fill]
ID 3
Summary Testing the dashboard menu of the application.
Environmen
t
The operating system in this test was the windows 10, and
used browsers were Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox.
Description In order to find out the user control on the page.
Screen
Grabs

Short
description related to
the defect description
There are three round icons that shows the current status
of different tickets. But none of this icons acts as user controls
which may lead to some final result.

Student name Student number Student email
address
[Please fill] [please fill] [please fill]
Project Exploring bugs of an application on
fixthis.stqm-31282.com.au
commencement date [please fill]
ID 4
Summary Testing the user interaction with the application
Environmen
t
The operating system in this test was the windows 10, and
used browsers were Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox.
Description Ease of interaction of the user with the application.
Screen
Grabs

Short
description related to
the defect description
While finding out the interaction with the application by
the users we found that while using the search box it posts back
the page to the server and reloads the page even when a non-
alphanumeric key is pressed from the key board. More over when
we try to use filters and reset filters it redirects to the task list
page which is not intended by the logic.