Did you know when adding a new parameter you can ignore the instructions to enter the values one on each line and instead enter them comma delimited? Probably not, but you can, and this impacted our range parsing code in some cases. Entering a range like so worked fine:
1,000-10,000
But entering a range like so (with the white space) did not work:
1,000 - 10,000
It resulted in 3 values "1", "000 - 10" and "000" rather than a single value range.
This means to trigger this defect you needed to do a parameter add, with only 1 parameter value that happened to be a comma delimited range, and that happened to have white space in it. That's somewhere between a 3-way and 4-way fault depending on exactly how you would have modeled the tests.
Hexawise creates value pairs on your behalf in some circumstances when you create constraints that imply other logically necessary constraints. There were two cases where Hexawise would complain about not being able to create these because they already existed. Of course them already existing is just fine and it shouldn't have complained.
An overly draconian security fix gone awry.
see above
It's massive in the same way the Sun is massive.
Did we mention it's massive?
Accessing Analyze Tests with a certain sequence of user interactions would cause Analyze Tests to stick at 0% complete. (Sequencing issues are an interesting form of pairwise defect to think about including in your tests).
The adding and editing of expected results in Auto-Scripts is now more robust with detection of unsaved edits when navigating away from the editing before it's completed. It's now consistent with editing Auto-Script steps.
The text area for defining test inputs (parameter add, parameter edit, bulk add, and bulk edit) now sizes to match the size of the top panel giving you more room to edit your parameter values.
The export a mind map achievement has a more clear description and a link to the help file about exporting.
In some cases and on some screen resolutions the 2 panels in the "Your Achievements" page would be inconsistently sized.
There were some cases (involving mixed use of delimiting commas and no commas) where value ranges would not expand to particular values. There were also cases where the distribution of: lowest value in the range, highest value in the range, random value in the range, then repeat, would not be used.
The UI is now more consistent about showing a "View" or "Discard" option when you quit editing steps before completing them. The same handling is now provided for editing expected results as well.
Unsaved expected result edits are now saved (after a prompt) when navigating away from the auto-scripts page.
For large sets of tests that are already generated and cached but take some time to render for display, the rest of the page now renders, and there is a waiting display for just the portion of the page waiting on the rendered tests.
If you attempted to create a plan with a name that already exists for one of your plans the resulting dialog was incomplete and did not provide a full explanation of why you could not create your plan.
We were temporarily using .xml as the extension for exported .opml files as a work around for them not emailing properly with their proper extension. This causes issues with some mind map tools though so we've gone back to the .opml extension and we zip them if they are emailed.
Thanks to Roon for pointing this out.
It is possible in Hexawise to require values that you also indicate are not allowed. Probably the ideal case is to alert you to this fact and not allow it.
What was actually happening was an inconsistent priority as to which should prevail, the requirement or the constraint. This was resolved with the requirement always being fulfilled, even if it violates a constraint.
There was a case where auto-script expected results that referred to the last parameter value could be removed when saving a bulk edit with no change. Thanks to Scott and his team for reporting this.
To simplify requirements traceability (and to boost performance) requirements are now reported as fulfilled once and only once in the first test case that fulfills the requirement.
This was an interesting pairwise defect discovered by Scott. If the FIRST thing you ever did on a plan's Auto-Scripts page was enter text into the Start, Step 1 or Finish text areas, AND you did it using only the mouse, never touching the keyboard (right click and paste the text), then the text area would disappear and not be saved. Depending on exactly how you are breaking things down that's a 2-way or 3-way defect, but it's one of those you'd swear wouldn't possibly happen until you replicated it yourself.
Thanks Scott!
The link is very useful in explaining why value pairs are sometimes inferred and created for you, so it's good it's working again.
When inserting a parameter value replacement with the keyboard or link, it would insert it at the end of the step text rather than in the cursor position. This has been resolved.
The lines in the inferred value pair creation dialog have a little more breathing room and styling to make them easier to parse and read.
Thanks to Scott for requesting the better legibility.
If you have a lot of parameters in your plan, creating an auto-script can be tedious if the vast majority of the steps have the exact same format.
Relax! Auto-Auto-Scripts are here to take away the tedium.
If you add the parameter name and parameter value replacement (use the insert drop down in the top right of the step) of the very first parameter in your plan to the first and only step of your auto-script, a new button appears that lets your automatically generate your auto-scripts based on the pattern you used in the first step for the first paramater.
Additional steps are created for each additional parameter in your test plan, and these new steps follow the same pattern of language as your first step. Then you can delete any steps that don't apply.
Thanks to Amit for the idea and for testing and feedback on the initial version.
You can click a test case row to highlight it (for contemplation or discussion), but this highlighting was unintentionally "sticky". Now clicking another row will result in just 1 highlight.