General

General

Categories

  1. We would like the test history to be more detailed. Currently it only shows us what step was updated but not a comparison of the changes made. We would like to see what was changed and what it was changed to (before and after). This would be of tremendous help during an audit if anything were to come up.

    67 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  2. Current integration with ADO is only syncing the Description information section from ADO to PractiTest but in most cases there are multiple information sections depending on the Work Item type in ADO like Acceptance Criteria for requirements and Repro Steps, System Info and Acceptance criteria for a bug in ADO. It will be great if the syncing is not limited to just Description information section but is smart enough to sync all the information sections to PractiTest when the sync is done.
    Also there are other important fields like Release Date and Priority for the Requirements which must be synced…

    33 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. Currently when the requirements and bugs are synced from ADO, the comments are not synced.

    For requirements the comments have valuable information reflecting the changes and doubts which are important for a tester to know while creating test cases so it is very critical to include the comments as well.Also if a tester has certain doubts on a requirements if there is a 2 way sync he can just post the comments on the PractiTest and they should flow to the linked requirement card in the ADO.

    For bugs, since the developers won't always have access to PractiTest, the will…

    28 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. Currently we are not syncing the attachments from ADO requirements or bugs to PractiTest nor from PractiTest bugs to ADO. It would be great if we can do a 2 way sync for the requirements as well.
    Many times the big requirements have attached docs which are essential for a tester to see to create test cases.
    Bugs in ADO will have screenshots and log files attached and they need to sync across to the PractiTest as well.
    Also when a bug is created from PractiTest to flow thru to ADO it will/should have screen shots attached along with other…

    22 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. When a project is integrated with a project board in JIRA or in future ADO, can we please make sure :
    (1) All the requirements flow thru automatically without a manual need to do it
    (2) The syncing of the requirements is automatically done periodically.
    (3) The issues raised in the Jira or ADO should sync automatically.

    26 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  6. Currently it appears that filters can only be created using OR statements that meet the same item type which can reduce the ability to find what you're looking for when your test library gets to be particularly large.

    For example I can create a filter that says:
    (Name is this or that) and tag is this

    And cannot make a filter with:
    Name is this or tag is this

    Or advancing even further to:
    (Name is this and tag is this) or (name is that and tag is that)

    It would be nice to be able to have this grouping…

    34 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. Currently practitest tools schedules all report (daily / weekly or monthly) at 6.00 AM but it would be great if tool allows to customize time for scheduling the reports to be delivered.

    4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  8. Please add two-way integration with Github. Not everyone's on Atlassian products such as Jira, Bitbucket, et al.

    34 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  6 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  9. Many companies use GitLab and they would warmly welcome a 2 way PT integration. At our company we conclude projects. One is developed in Redmine, the other is in GitLab. It would be nice to use PT for both platforms with equal funcionality.

    19 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  10. 13 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  11. We would like to have execution progress graph displaying custom fields.
    example:
    a execution graph with ("automated", "planned for automation",...) fields.

    37 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  12. 57 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  13. 15 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  14. As mentioned with the Ability to add a test case item, we tried filters; it’s cumbersome to have to shift gears and create a new filter every time that we want to look up / search for something new. It clutters things up as then there is the maintenance and scrolling to contend with as well.

    25 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  15. When preparing a "Test set", sometimes we need to give extra informations about the "Set" we prepare with other builders and testers.
    It would provide us the ability to share informations such as the purpose of the "set" or any extra data needed to execute the test.

    And more, having a "comment" section in each "Set" would be helpful to share informations between testers and those who build the "Set".

    26 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  16. PractiTest is rather click-heavy.
    One way to reduce this would be to allow multiple steps to be added quickly. A data entry field before the Add Step link allowing the user to provide a number of steps to be added would be a simple fix. Default this to 1 and existing behaviour remains. If the user enters 23, then 23 new blank lines are added/inserted. This will facilitate faster/less disrupted test case writing.

    As the user may then over estimate the number of blank steps required, an option to Delete all blank steps would be a complimentary click reducing feature.

    8 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  17. Now you have to upload an attachment twice when there are issues to raise. It would be handy if an attachment can be linked or copied to the issue.

    10 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. Conditional Mandatory Fields - If I have a field that is value X, then make one or two the selected fields mandatory to fill in (or select). If value is not X then either grey out the fields or make the other one or two fields not required.

    18 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  3 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  19. Would like to have a single dashboard that can cover multiple projects. As a manager of projects this would be highly benefitcial.

    11 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  3 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  20. Currently, the PT zap can only Create a requirements or Run. Creating and updating issues actions are also important when it is integrated with other tools. Enhance the current zap to include custom fields and tags.

    0 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    waiting for supporters  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  • Don't see your idea?