Test Plan for MWiF

[Greyshaft]

Rename the file to "TEST.ZIP" while downloading or afterwards using Windows Explorer

[Hortlund]

Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?

Nope. Not sure at all.
I'm happy to listen to better suggestions about how to spend my time [:)]

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?

[:D] LOL [:D] It keeps me busy.

RaW 7 WiF Politics

3.1 Sequence of play. The sequence of play in a turn is:

A. REINFORCEMENT STAGE

B. ~ 5. Lending Resources Stage
~ 5.1 Trade agreements

C. INITIATIVE STAGE

D. ACTION STAGE. Repeat D1 through D3 until the action stage ends.
D1 Determine weather
D2 First side’s impulse. Every major power on the first side performs these steps:

D2.1 ~ 9. Declaring war
~ 9.1 Neutral major powers
~ 9.2 How to declare war
~ 9.3 Compulsory declarations
~ 9.4 US entry
~ 9.5 Neutrality pacts
~ 9.6 Calling out the reserves
~ 9.7 Controlling new minors
~ 9.8 Aligning minors
~ 9.9 Multiple states of war
~ 9.10 Japanese occupation

D2.2 Choose action
D2.3 Perform actions
D2.4 End of action
D3 Second side’s impulse

E. 13. End of Turn Stage. Both sides perform these steps in this order:
~ 13.1 Partisans (Option 46)
~ 13.2 Entry markers
~ 13.3 US entry
~ 13.3.1 Entry markers
~ 13.3.2 US entry options
~ 13.3.3 US entry actions
~ 19.6 Soviet border rectification
~ 19.6.1 USSR and Finland borderlands
~ 19.6.2 USSR and Rumanian Bessarabia

E3 Return to base
E4 Final reorganization
E5 Production

E6 ~ 22.1 Intelligence (option 63)

E7 ~ 13.7 Peace
~ 19.12 The Ukraine (option 62)
E7.1 ~ 13.7.1 Conquest
E7.2 ~ 13.7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 ~ 13.7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4
~ 13.7.4 Vichy declaration
~ 17. Vichy France
~ 17.1 Creation
~ 17.2 Determine control
~ 17.3 Units
~ 17.4 Running Vichy France
~ 17.5 Combat with Vichy
~ 17.6 Running Free France
E7.5 ~ 13.7.5 Liberation
E7.6 ~ 13.7.6 Surrender

E8 ~ 13.8 Victory check (& option 30: factory destruction)

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?

You mean in case the project winds up as vaporware? Or do you mean that Matrix may not require non-staff testers to go quite this far...

I'm working on Air rules test protocols (Mziln seems to have staked out political); my only concern is that the form of the game may change (ugh I hope not), and then any of these procedures will have to be redone.

[Greyshaft]

Mziln, Coregames (and anyone else whos serious about developing a professional Test Plan for MWiF)

Pls send me a PM with your email address and I will send you an Excel spreadsheet which starts to set out the "Use Case" test plan for checking off the usage of WiF:FE rules in MWiF.

A "Use Case" plan concentrates on the interaction of the User with the system. It lists the expected interactions (ie the WiF:FE ruleset) and lists the tests for ensuring that those rules are implemented in MWiF. It does not look for bugs as such although it may find some along the way. When you see the spreadsheet you will understand.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: coregames

You mean in case the project winds up as vaporware? Or do you mean that Matrix may not require non-staff testers to go quite this far...

I mean in case
1) it goes vaporware
2) matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play due to whatever reason

Its not as if its set in stone that the wif rules will be used for the computer conversion. Quite on the contrary, from looking at some of their answers, it seems to be very much an open question.

And
3) its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system when you dont know even what the GDDs are. Not to mention that any beta is at least 1-1,5 yrs away (best case scenario).

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
... its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system when you dont know even what the GDDs are. Not to mention that any beta is at least 1-1,5 yrs away (best case scenario).

So feel free not to participate.

From my point of view the benefits of this exercise are:

1. The participants get a chance to reread the WiF:FE ruleset in excruciating detail and thereby become more deadly opponents in their FTF games.

2. There is now a constructive and educational outlet for the frustrated fans who haunt this Forum (myself included) and the participants learn a little bit about professional software testing.

3. A draft Test plan is created which covers WiF:FE. This will doubtless be tweaked/ modified/ revised later on - like every other Test Plan I have ever worked on.

4. At some point in the future the Matrix Team will want a Test Plan and – lo and behold – here is a bunch of wannabe beta-testers who have got off their bulging backsides and created one. That’s gotta help in jumping the queue to be a beta-tester. [:D]

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


I mean in case
1) it goes vaporware
2) matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play due to whatever reason

Its not as if its set in stone that the wif rules will be used for the computer conversion. Quite on the contrary, from looking at some of their answers, it seems to be very much an open question.

And
3) its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system when you dont know even what the GDDs are. Not to mention that any beta is at least 1-1,5 yrs away (best case scenario).

(1) If it goes vaporware. Well, in my personal opinion ANY PROGRAM NOT RELEASED is vaporware.

(2) If matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play. Cut and Paste Cut and Paste.

(3) Its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system. Matrix has asked for our ideas and opinions here they are If nothing else it gives us a ready made list of things to complain about

YUP, I'm a wannabe beta tester in training

[coregames]

Original: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I mean in case
1) it goes vaporware
2) matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play due to whatever reason

Panzerjaeger has a point Greyshaft. If they implement a general consolidation of the turn sequence for PBEM, as you suggested a while back, the test protocols will all need to be redone to be valid. I do hope that truly faithful play (at least as much so as CM's beta at any rate) will be an option, in which case none of the effort you suggest will be wasted.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: coregames
Panzerjaeger has a point Greyshaft. If they implement a general consolidation of the turn sequence for PBEM, as you suggested a while back, the test protocols will all need to be redone to be valid.

Lets get a bit deeper into test definitions.

The "Use Case" test is a simple check of functionality to ensure that a task CAN be done. It is not really concerned with HOW it is done. So a Use case test would ensure that you can launch a Port Strike but it would not be concerned where in the turn sequence it occured. Once the Use Case testing was completed and all of the application functions were confirmed as existant (no matter where in the Turn Sequence they occured ) then you move onto User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and ensure that the Port Strike occured in accordance with expectations.

If we take the WiF:FE + PiF + SiF ruleset as a somewhat longwinded Project Brief then we need a way to ensure that the Project Specification (yet to be written) covers all of the function points listed in that Project Brief. That is what a "Use Case" test does and that the purpose of my current documentation.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
The "Use Case" test is a simple check of functionality to ensure that a task CAN be done. It is not really concerned with HOW it is done. So a Use case test would ensure that you can launch a Port Strike but it would not be concerned where in the turn sequence it occured.

So, such aspects as flying extended range, carrier planes flying from hexdots, etc..., are not part of the "Use Case"? I was going to include all aspects and options from WiFFE in my procedures for testing air rules, including bounce combat and interception en route. If I stay modular with the procedures, I guess they can be reshuffled based on any adjustments to the sequence.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: coregames
So, such aspects as flying extended range, carrier planes flying from hexdots, etc..., are not part of the "Use Case"?

All expected functionality of WiF:FW + SiF + PiF is part of this Use Case test. If we get confirmation that LiF will be added then we can construct Test Modules for that.

ORIGINAL: coregames
I was going to include all aspects and options from WiFFE in my procedures for testing air rules, including bounce combat and interception en route. If I stay modular with the procedures, I guess they can be reshuffled based on any adjustments to the sequence.

Do that! Include everything from the WiF:FE + PiF + SiF. When we have the completed document we then use it as a checklist for the System Specification for MWiF. The finalised document will tell us the difference between the Harry's WiF:FE rule set and MWiF 1.00 and then we can play 'Forum in Flames'

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

then we can play 'Forum in Flames'

yikes... online that sounds like an invitation for trouble! [X(]

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?

Nope. Not sure at all.
I'm happy to listen to better suggestions about how to spend my time [:)]

http://www.fincher.org/Misc/Pennies/


There you go bud [;)]

[Greyshaft]

uh... thanks... but I did say "better" suggestions. [:D]

[Greyshaft]

Coregames, Mziln,
I’ve finished the spreadsheet setup from 4.0-Reinforcements to 11.1-Passing (inclusive). Could you confirm the rules sections for the setups you are doing so we don’t overlap.

Thanks

[coregames]

I am working on all of RaW 7 section 14, including pilots as they relate to combat but not as they relate to production. I'm not sure if this should include how an offensive chit affects an air action.

[Mziln]

From RaW 7

Editing (compairing RaW 7 to CWiF (there are diferences), reorganizing, removing duplication, and makeing it easier to understand)...

[:)] My resume shows I have been a Documental analyst, proof reader, and have taken courses in technical report writing. So don't worry about me messing up the RaW. Although my spelling and grammar arn't the best I let spellchecker do that for me. [:)]

Example: Why talk about US entry options before you explain US entry actions? Since options don't take place unless actions are taken. Oh yeah, you draw an action chit/marker (for simplicity and clarity, the rules should use one term or the other ) every turn. You have the chance for several actions before the draw of the chit/marker for the turn.

B. 5. Lending Resources Stage
5.1 Trade agreements

D2.1 9. Declaring war
9.1 Neutral major powers
9.2 How to declare war
9.3 Compulsory declarations
9.4 US entry
9.5 Neutrality pacts
9.6 Calling out the reserves
9.7 Controlling new minors
9.8 Aligning minors
9.9 Multiple states of war
9.10 Japanese occupation

E. 13. End of Turn Stage
13.1 Partisans (Option 46)
13.2 Neutrality pact entry markers
13.3 US entry
13.3.1 US Entry markers
13.3.2 US entry options
13.3.3 US entry actions

E6 22.1 Intelligence (Option 63)
E7 13.7 Peace
9.5 Neutrality pacts
19.12 The Ukraine (Option 62)
E7.1 13.7.1 Conquest
E7.2 13.7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 13.7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4 13.7.4 Vichy declaration
17. Vichy France
17.1 Creation
17.2 Determine control
17.3 Units
17.4 Running Vichy France
17.5 Combat with Vichy
17.6 Running Free France
E7.5 13.7.5 Liberation
E7.6 13.7.6 Surrender
E8 13.8 Victory check

19. Minor countries
19.1 Neutral minor countries
19.2 Entering the war
19.3 Who can enter the minor
19.4 Minor country units
19.5 The Nazi-Soviet pact
19.6 Soviet border rectification
19.6.1 USSR and Finland borderlands
19.6.2 USSR and Rumanian Bessarabia

Did you get the extract of Naval rules (from RaW 7) and the Production spread sheet (compiled from CWiF) that I sent you [&:]

[Greyshaft]

Great progress all around although Mziln and I did some duplication of work. I'd say we're about halfway there. I see the list of remaining topics as follows:

11.1 FAIL Rail movement
11.11 FAIL Land movement
11.12 FAIL Air transport
11.13 FAIL Debarking land units
11.14 FAIL Invasions
11.15 FAIL Paradrops
11.16 FAIL Land combat
11.17 FAIL Aircraft rebases
11.18 FAIL Reorganisation
11.2 FAIL Port attack
11.3 FAIL Naval air missions
11.6 FAIL Opponent’s naval combat
11.7 FAIL Strategic bombardment
11.8 FAIL Carpet bombing (option 32)
11.9 FAIL Ground strike
12 FAIL Last impulse test
13 FAIL End of Turn Stage
13.1 FAIL Partisans (option 46)
13.2 FAIL Entry markers
13.3 FAIL US entry
13.4 FAIL Return to base
13.5 FAIL Final reorganisation step
13.6 FAIL Production
13.8 FAIL Victory check
15 FAIL Surprise
15.1 FAIL Surprise effects
16 FAIL Offensive chits (option 61)
16.1 FAIL Air action
16.2 FAIL Naval action
16.3 FAIL Land action
16.4 FAIL Combined action
16.5 FAIL Reorganise HQs
18 FAIL Co-operation
18.1 FAIL Who can co-operate
18.2 FAIL Not co-operating
18.3 FAIL Co-operating
19.1 FAIL Austria & East Prussia
19.11 FAIL French African minors
19.13 FAIL MIL units
19.7 FAIL Axis minor countries
19.8 FAIL Allied minor countries
19.9 FAIL Netherlands East Indies
20 FAIL Chinese communists
21 FAIL Stilwell
22 FAIL Optional rules
22.1 FAIL Intelligence (option 63)
22.2 FAIL Factory destruction & construction
22.3 FAIL Japanese command conflict
22.4 FAIL Optional units

I'll work on section 11 for the moment.


Mziln:
I didn't get those things from you. Where did you send them?