Essential session storage is required to sign in. Optional analytics remain off unless you allow them.
Take a small feature with clear rules (e.g. a discount calculator, an age-gated signup, or a password-strength validator) and design a documented test suite USING formal techniques — not random guessing. Apply equivalence partitioning (group inputs into valid/invalid classes, one representative each) and boundary value analysis (test at and just past each edge). Write each test case with id, preconditions, steps, test data, and expected result, and trace each back to a rule/requirement. Include negative cases. Explain why your cases give strong coverage with few tests.
Correct equivalence partitioning (one per class) and boundary value analysis (edges + just inside/outside); not ad-hoc guessing.
Well-formed, independent, traceable test cases with explicit data and expected results; meaningful negative cases.
Explains how the techniques maximize defect-finding per test and which requirement each case covers.
Another tester could execute the suite unambiguously.
Use this README structure to make the work reviewable.
DevPath fetches a read-only, size-capped snapshot. Submitted code is never executed.
# Design a test suite with formal techniques ## Goal Take a small feature with clear rules (e.g. a discount calculator, an age-gated signup, or a password-strength validator) and design a documented test suite USING formal techniques — not random guessing. Apply equivalence partitioning (group inputs into valid/invalid classes, one representative each) and boundary value analysis (test at and just past each edge). Write each test case with id, preconditions, steps, test data, and expected result, and trace each back to a rule/requirement. Include negative cases. Explain why your cases give strong coverage with few tests. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Technique rigor: Correct equivalence partitioning (one per class) and boundary value analysis (edges + just inside/outside); not ad-hoc guessing. - [ ] Case quality: Well-formed, independent, traceable test cases with explicit data and expected results; meaningful negative cases. - [ ] Coverage reasoning: Explains how the techniques maximize defect-finding per test and which requirement each case covers. - [ ] Clarity: Another tester could execute the suite unambiguously. ## Verification - [ ] Document installation and run commands. - [ ] Record automated checks and their exact commands. - [ ] Add representative output, screenshots, or a short demo where useful. - [ ] Confirm failure paths and known constraints. ## Decision log ### Decision title - Context: - Choice: - Alternatives considered: - Tradeoffs: ## Evidence - Link each rubric criterion to the file, test, or artifact that demonstrates it. ## Known limitations - List what is intentionally out of scope and what should be improved next.