Use when writing, generating, or adding manual test cases to TestRail. Produces structured cases with preconditions, step-by-step actions with expected results, and all required metadata fields. Also use when asked to cover a User Story with test cases, prepare cases for a new feature, or post cases to a TestRail section via API.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
write-testrail-cases
description
Use when writing, generating, or adding manual test cases to TestRail. Produces structured cases with preconditions, step-by-step actions with expected results, and all required metadata fields. Also use when asked to cover a User Story with test cases, prepare cases for a new feature, or post cases to a TestRail section via API.
Write TestRail Cases
Core principle: A test case exists to verify a business rule, not to document a click path. Navigation is the means; assertions about the resulting state are the point. A case whose expected results could be true even if the feature were broken is a failed case.
Mandatory Workflow (follow in this exact order)
Detect the application area from the story (see Area Detection below) and read the matching context file in references/context/. Never skip this. If the area cannot be determined, ask the user.
1b. Assess context quality. After reading the context file, check if enrichment is needed (see Lightweight Context Enrichment below). Trigger enrichment automatically if ANY of these are true:
Context file does not exist
File header says DRAFT
File has fewer than 10 Key Business Rules
File has no "Exact UI Texts" section or fewer than 3 confirmed toasts
File has more than 5 items in "Known Gaps / Items to Verify"
Read references/examples.md — golden cases from the team's TestRail. New cases must match their verification depth and style.
Read the User Story / Jira ticket (fetch via Jira MCP if an ID is given). Extract: Summary, Description, Acceptance Criteria, Development Team (→ custom_dev_team), and the ticket key(s) that belong in refs. refs = whatever work item(s) this case verifies. In this team's real cases that is very often NOT a story — it may be a Bug the case regression-covers, a Tech-Debt/automation ticket, or several related tickets across different Jira projects (e.g. UIF-525, UIF-526, MODFIN-391, MODFIN-421). Include every ticket the user explicitly gave and every ticket the case directly verifies. Do NOT auto-add unrelated links Jira happens to show (unrelated parent epics, sibling subtasks, review tasks pulled in only by enrichment). If there is no story at all and the case exists to cover a bug, the bug key is the correct refs — do not invent a story-style key.
Map the story to the context file's "Key Business Rules" section: list every rule the story touches or changes. Each touched rule is a scenario candidate. Each acceptance criterion is a scenario candidate.
Perform Scenario Analysis and present the scenario list to the user for confirmation (format below). Wait for confirmation.
Generate cases, one per confirmed scenario, following the Writing Guidelines and Step Patterns.
Self-review every case against the Self-review gate before showing it. Fix violations silently.
Ask for the TestRail Section ID, show the posting preview, wait for explicit confirmation, then post via API.
Lightweight Context Enrichment
Runs automatically when triggered by step 1b. This is NOT a full build-app-context run — it is fast and targeted to the specific story. Do not write anything to disk.
What to fetch
GitHub — max 3 files, in priority order:
translations/<ui-module>/en_US.json — extract values for translation keys that contain the story's main feature keywords (e.g. if story is about "batch allocation", extract keys containing "batch", "allocation", "budget"). Use the GitHub repo from the area detection table.
package.json → stripes.permissionSets — extract all permissionName / displayName values as candidate Capability Set names.
One Cypress fragment file from stripes-testing/cypress/support/fragments/<area>/ that matches the story's feature — extract UI label strings and selector names.
Jira — story + directly linked issues only:
The story itself is already fetched in step 3 — reuse it.
Fetch all issues directly linked to the story: subtasks, related bugs, parent epic (one API call each).
Extract acceptance criteria from each linked issue → additional business rule candidates.
Issues fetched purely for enrichment are a context source — do not reflexively dump all of them into refs.refs stays what step 3 set: the ticket(s) the user gave plus the item(s) the case directly verifies (which may be a bug, a tech-debt ticket, or several related keys — see step 3). The rule is "what does this case verify", not "story-key-only" and not "every link Jira shows".
What NOT to fetch
All closed stories for the component — that is build-app-context scope.
All bugs for the component.
More than 3 GitHub files.
Any file larger than 150 KB.
How to use enriched data
Add extracted strings to in-memory context for this session only.
Do NOT write to the context file on disk — context files are read-only for this skill.
In the Scenario Analysis output, add a note:
⚠️ Context was enriched from GitHub/Jira for this session (context file triggered enrichment). Run build-app-context to make the enrichment permanent.
If enrichment also returns zero useful data (GitHub unreachable, Jira returns nothing) — proceed with what the context file has and note it in Scenario Analysis:
⚠️ Context enrichment attempted but returned no additional data. Cases are based on the existing context file only — verify domain-specific details on first execution.
Area Detection and Context Files
Context files live in references/context/. Determine the area from (in priority order): the apps and entities actually described in the story text, the Development Team field, and only then the Jira project prefix as a hint. If the story content contradicts the prefix mapping, trust the story content. Confirm your detection in one line ("Story describes — loading context") rather than asking, unless detection is ambiguous — then ask.
The story itself is the source of truth. If the user's instructions contradict the story (e.g. "this is not an ECS story" while the story has an ecs label, mentions tenants/affiliations, or lives in a consortia module), do not silently follow either side — flag the conflict in one line and ask which to trust before generating. The same applies to ECS Enabled: derive it from the story's labels and text, not from assumptions.
Area
Context file
Jira prefixes / keywords
Agreements
references/context/agreements.md
ERM, UIAG; "agreement", "agreement line", "SAS"
Bulk Edit
references/context/bulk-edit.md
UIBULKED, MODBULKOPS; "bulk edit", "identifier", "in-app", "commit changes", "preview of records matched", "errors accordion", "reason for error", "bulk edit profile", "query builder", "matched records", "suppress from discovery"
A story can span two areas (e.g. closing an order affects Finance) — read both context files.
Some areas are API/protocol-tested, not UI-tested. OAI-PMH, and API-flagged cases in MARC validation (API | ... sections), assert HTTP requests and XML/JSON response fields rather than toasts, modals, and panes. For these, the same rigor applies but to a different surface: the "steps" are request URLs/params (e.g. verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=marc21_withholdings&from=<date>) and the "expected results" are response contents and exact field mappings (e.g. holdings → MARC 952 subfields), not UI strings. Don't force a UI navigation/toast shape onto these; follow the protocol/field-mapping detail in the context file. Execution Type may be Karate or Backend Component rather than Manual for such cases.
If a context file for the detected area does not exist, notify the user:
"I don't have a context file for this area yet. I'll generate cases based on the User Story alone — results may be less accurate for domain-specific preconditions."
How to use the context file
Key Business Rules section is the scenario source. For each rule the story touches, decide: does this story change the rule, depend on it, or risk breaking it? Touched rules become scenarios.
Use the domain model to write realistic preconditions: which records must exist, in what status, with what values (e.g. an encumbrance requires a Fund, a Budget in an active Fiscal Year, an Open PO with a POL fund distribution).
Use documented side effects to build verification steps: if the context file says an action touches N entities (e.g. PO Close → encumbrance released, budget Available restored, PO status + reason for closure, POL statuses), the case verifies ALL of them.
Use exact terminology from the context file (statuses, field names, transaction types) — never invent UI labels.
Context file protection rule
Context files in references/context/ are read-only for this skill.
Never modify, overwrite, or delete context files when running write-testrail-cases.
If a context file appears outdated, notify the user and suggest running build-app-context to refresh it.
Scenario Analysis
Before generating cases, present:
I've read the story (refs: XXX-123) and the <area> context. Business rules touched: <rule numbers/short names>.
Here are the scenarios I plan to cover:
Happy path:
1. User can successfully [main action] with valid data → Critical Path
Business-rule verification:
2. [action] releases/creates/updates [entity] with [exact state] → Critical Path
UI verification:
3. [page/modal] shows all required elements on open → Extended
Capability boundaries:
4. User without [Capability Set] cannot [action] → Critical Path
Negative / edge cases:
5. [action] fails when [condition] → Extended
Does this coverage look complete? Any scenarios to add or remove before I write the cases?
For feature stories on top of finance/rollover/templates, bias the scenario list toward the team's journey shape (see "Journey vs atomic cases"). Prefer a handful of Functional journey cases that each bundle several related ACs over one atomic case per AC, and explicitly include an "Inferred integration scenarios" group proposing the cross-feature / over-time journeys the ACs don't spell out (fiscal-year rollover, create-from-template, new-FY-begins, sibling-gating-off). Present these clearly so the user can confirm scope before generation:
Inferred integration journeys (not in the ACs — from domain knowledge, confirm scope):
J1. Create + edit an order carrying the feature across a fiscal-year rollover → Functional / Critical Path / Journey
J2. Create an order from a template that has the feature preconfigured → Functional / Critical Path / Journey
J3. Feature behavior when a new fiscal year begins → Functional / Extended / Journey
Wait for the user's confirmation or corrections before proceeding.
Journey vs atomic cases
Choose the case granularity to match the story type:
Lifecycle / workflow stories (a process with checkpoints: request lifecycle with notices, order open→receive→pay, import job stages) → write one journey case per flow variant, walking through the whole lifecycle and verifying every checkpoint along the way (like the team's mediated-request notice cases: create → notice → transit → arrival → pickup → notice → cancel → notice in a single case). Set User Journey = Yesonly if the target area actually uses that flag (see the House Style table's journey column — most areas leave it No even for large cases). Flow variants (Page vs Hold, item-level vs title-level) become separate journey cases, not separate per-checkpoint cases.
Feature / element stories (a new column, modal, validation, setting) → atomic cases per scenario, User Journey = No — but size each case to the area's median (a Fees&Fines element case is ~2 steps; a Bulk Edit one is large).
Never split one lifecycle into per-checkpoint stubs — an executor would have to rebuild the same preconditions N times, and intermediate state transitions would go unverified.
Match the target area's house style — do NOT impose one global shape. A measured audit of the real corpus (see "House Style by Area" table below) shows the team's Type, typical case size, and journey-flag usage vary strongly by area, so the right shape is whatever that area actually does, not a universal "journey-first" or "atomic" rule. Concretely:
Case granularity / size follows the area's median. Some areas are short and atomic by norm (Fees&Fines median ~2 steps, Course Reserves / Circulation Settings ~3); others are large and workflow-shaped (Bulk Edit median ~14, Patron Notices ~12, Data Import ~10); acquisitions sit around 7–8. Write to the local median: don't emit 14 one-AC stubs where the area writes bundled workflow cases, and don't force a giant journey where the area writes tight atomic checks. When a feature genuinely spans a workflow (the UIOR-1530 Payment-terms example — the team wrote 4 large bundled cases C1385639/C1395029/C1404901/C1404902, not 13 one-AC stubs), bundle several related ACs into one case; when the story is a small element on a short-case area, stay atomic.
Type is per-area (resolve IDs via get_case_types). Acquisitions & a few others skew Functional (Orders 94%, Invoices 95%, Finance 94%, Organizations 85%, Mediated 94%, eHoldings 62%). Most circulation / ERM / export areas skew Other (Loans 85%, Fees&Fines 79%, Bulk Edit 94%, Agreements 89%, License 98%, Data Export 93%, OAI-PMH 84%, Circulation Log/Settings, Course Reserves, Lists). Several are ~50/50 (Check-in, Check-out, Data Import, Users, Requests). Pick the Type that dominates the target area's row below.
User Journey flag is rarely set — default No. Across the corpus it is 0–3% in most areas (Orders 0%, Bulk Edit 0%, Finance 2%), with only a few modest exceptions (Check-in ~18%, Organizations ~15%, Circulation Settings ~10%). Do NOT set User Journey = Yes just because a case walks several steps — the team writes large bundled cases and still leaves the flag No. Set it Yes only in the handful of areas that actually use it, or when the case is an explicit end-to-end lifecycle in a circulation area.
Still think like a senior QA — infer integration scenarios the ACs don't spell out (fiscal-year rollover, create-from-template, sibling-gating-off, record-open side effects), derived from the context file's domain knowledge, and propose them in Scenario Analysis marked as inferred. That instinct is area-independent even though the case shape is not.
refs may span the whole feature, not just the one story — when a case genuinely exercises sibling FE/BE tickets (e.g. UIOR-1530 cases also drive UIOR-1528 + MODORDERS-1428), list all of them in , not only the story you were asked about.
House Style by Area (measured from the real TestRail corpus, 2026-07-23)
Match the target area's row: use the dominant Type, aim near the median step count, and only set User Journey = Yes where the flag column is non-trivial. Percentages are share of that area's cases; resolve Type IDs via get_case_types (Functional=6, Other=7).
Area
Dominant Type
Median steps
Journey flag
Shape note
Orders
Functional (94%)
8
~0%
Functional, mid-size; bundle workflow ACs
Invoices
Functional (95%)
8
~1%
Functional, mid-size
Finance
Functional (94%)
7
~2%
Functional, exact money values
Organizations
Functional (85%)
8
~15%
Functional; journey flag sometimes used
Mediated Requests
Functional (94%)
6
~0%
Functional, ECS-by-default
eHoldings
Functional (62%)
6
~9%
Lean Functional
Loans
Other (85%)
6
~0%
Other, short/atomic
Fees&Fines
Other (79%)
2
~1%
Other, very short atomic cases
Bulk Edit
Other (94%)
14
~0%
Other, large multi-step cases
Agreements
Other (89%)
8
~9%
Other
License
Other (98%)
7
~3%
Other
Data Export
Other (93%)
6
~0%
Other
Lists
Other (65%)
6
~0%
Other/Functional mix, lean Other
Circulation Settings
Other (69%)
3
~10%
Other, short
Circulation Log
Other (82%)
5
~8%
Other
Course Reserves
Other (61%)
3
~0%
Other, short
OAI-PMH
Other (84%)
8
~0%
Other, API/protocol assertions
Check-in
~50/50
6
For any area not in this table, sample the area's TestRail section directly and match what you see.
Watch for terse titles that hide a journey. A short scenario name like "item with at least one open request" or "check in special-status item" often means walk every outcome that condition produces in one case, not just the first. The team's real case for "item with an open request" (C7148) is a single User Journey = Yes case that checks in the item at a non-pickup service point (→ In transit, transit slip, reprint), then switches to the pickup service point and checks it in again (→ Awaiting pickup, hold slip, reprint) — both fulfillment outcomes plus slip reprints in one case. When a condition can resolve to multiple end states, default to a journey covering all of them and confirm in Scenario Analysis, rather than emitting an atomic case for just one branch.
Verify effects at their real destination
Assert the end effect where it actually lands, not at a convenient proxy:
Notices → check the mailbox from preconditions: exact subject + body contains the configured item/title/patron tokens. The Circulation log "Notice sent" entry may be an additional check, never the only one.
Exports → download and check the produced file, not only the log row.
Finance effects → the transaction and budget values, not only a toast.
Scenario Coverage Checklist
For every User Story, consider:
Primary happy path (valid data, expected flow, correct end state)
Every Key Business Rule the story touches — verified by explicit state assertions
UI element verification (buttons, labels, columns, counts — especially for new pages)
Edit and duplicate flows (where applicable)
Delete flow including: Cancel button, confirm delete, verify removal from list
Capability boundaries: restricted user cannot perform actions outside their Capability Sets — and the case also asserts what the restricted user still CAN see/do
Edge cases: repeated UUIDs, records referenced in multiple places, boundary values
Status field changes (exact before/after values)
Toast messages: exact text with placeholders — never just "success toast"
Modal element verification: key elements are verified inline on first open; full modal inventory is used only when the modal itself is under test
Interactive modal buttons (Swap, Recalculate): dedicated scenario verifying fields, errors, and button states update after clicking
Multi-tenant / ECS behavior (only if applicable to the story)
Drag and drop / reordering (if the story involves record order)
Multi-tab behavior (only if the story explicitly covers concurrent editing — rare pattern, see end of Step Patterns)
Inline edit flows: Save/Cancel appear inline, Save disabled until change made, row returns to read-only on Cancel
Multi-select dropdowns: all options shown, dropdown stays open after selection, Save enables/disables correctly
Search & filter pane: all accordions with correct initial expanded/collapsed state; Search/Reset buttons disabled by default
Test Case Structure
Every test case has these sections (in order):
Metadata — Type, Priority, Release, Test Group, References, and other classification fields.
Preconditions — numbered list: all users with their Capability Sets, required data setup with exact values, and starting system state.
Steps — actions with a concrete expected result for each step.
Template
Title: [Actor/Subject] [verb] [object] [condition]
Type: Other
Priority: [Critical | High | Medium | Low — choose based on impact]
Release: Umbrellaleaf
Test Group: [Smoke | Critical Path | Extended — required]
User Journey: No [set to Yes for journey/lifecycle cases — see "Journey vs atomic cases"]
Multi-Tenant: No
Bug Created: No
Unstable: No
ECS Enabled: No [set to Yes only when the story explicitly tests ECS/cross-tenant behavior]
ECS Unsupported: No [fixed default — never ask]
Capabilities Ready: Yes
Execution Type: Manual [required]
Dev Team: [Value from "Development Team" field in the User Story]
Customer Name: [All | MOBIUS/GALILEO | LOC — only if the story targets a specific customer]
Labels: AI [always added to every case]
References: [Jira ticket IDs, comma-separated, e.g. MODFIN-273, UIF-657]
Preconditions:
1. User with following Capability Sets is logged in:
- Data - [Module] [Resource] - [Action]
- Procedural - [Module] [Resource] - [Action]
2. [Required records with exact values, closely related facts grouped into one entry where natural, e.g. "Two Fiscal years exist. One has an assigned Acquisition unit; Fund A-FY-current: Allocated = 200.00, Encumbered = 50.00, Available = 150.00"]
3. [More data as needed — one numbered entry per record/state or tightly related group of facts, so steps can reference "Preconditions #3"]
4. User is on [Starting app/page]
Steps:
1. Action: [verb] [object] on [location] — navigation/setup clicks may be grouped as a bullet list inside one step when they share a single verification point
Expected: [Observable UI or system result — prose by default; bullet list only for a true inventory of independently-checkable items]
2. Action: [verb] [entity] from Preconditions #N
Expected: [Column-by-column / field-by-field assertion with exact values]
Title Format Rules
Use a plain descriptive sentence — no prefixes, no labels.
User with Edit capability set can create locked mapping profile
Mapping profile Status column shows Locked after lock checkbox is enabled
Delete mapping profile modal shows all required elements
Holdings export fails when submitted file contains invalid UUIDs
Search filters mapping profiles by name and FOLIO record type
User can create a multi-select custom field ← always include actor ("User can...")
User can check out requested item in Central tenant ← ECS case: no prefix needed, tenant context is in the title
Don'ts ✗
Verify mapping profile creation — too vague, no subject or condition
Create a text field custom field — missing actor; rewrite as User can create a text field custom field
Verify that final custom field can be removed — don't start with "Verify that"
Negative: Holdings export with invalid UUIDs — no prefixes
ECS | Delete locked mapping profile — no pipe-style prefixes
Load testing - Export 500k records — no prefixes
Test that user can create profile — don't start with "Test that"
ECS title exception: You may use [ECS <Area>] prefix only when the test is exclusively ECS-specific and the area label adds essential disambiguation — e.g. [ECS Loans] User can check out requested item in Central tenant. Use sparingly; prefer embedding the tenant context in the title sentence itself.
Note: the Title is the one place actor naming ("User can...") is used. Steps below use imperative style instead — see Writing Guidelines.
Writing Guidelines
Write every test case as if it will be executed by a QA engineer who has never seen this feature before. Steps must be precise enough that any team member — Firebird, Spitfire, Vega, Volaris, Thunderjet — can execute the case without guessing. Same level of detail regardless of team or area.
Preconditions
Target environment is Eureka, so Capability Sets are the source of truth for a new case's access requirements — always include them. Note, however, that a large share of the team's real cases list both the legacy Okapi permission and the Eureka capability set, frequently as a two-column table ("Permission name for Okapi env" / "Capabilities/Sets for Eureka env"), e.g.:
| Permission name for Okapi env. | Capabilities/Sets for Eureka env. |
| Requests: All permissions | data - UI-Requests - manage |
This dual listing is an accepted team convention during the Okapi→Eureka transition — do not treat the presence of a legacy-permission column as an error, and preserve it if the user's source material or the section's existing cases use it. When generating from scratch with no such precedent, a clean Eureka-capability-set list alone is fine. Never rely on a legacy permission instead of a capability set.
Number every precondition (1., 2., 3., ...) so steps can reference them as "Preconditions #N". The list must be flat: each user, each data record, and the starting page are separate top-level numbered items — never nest a data record or login state as a sub-bullet under another item. Sub-bullets are allowed only for listing Capability Sets under a user entry. Before finalizing, check that every "Preconditions #N" referenced in steps resolves to an actual top-level item N.
Grouping facts within one entry is expected, not just tolerated. Real team-authored preconditions routinely pack several closely related facts into a single numbered item (e.g. "Two Fiscal years exist. One has an assigned Acquisition unit" or "Fund A-FY-current: Allocated = 200.00, Encumbered = 50.00, Available = 150.00" as one line covering three values). Split into separate numbered items only when the sub-facts belong to genuinely different records/entities, or when a step needs to reference one specific fact by number independently of the others. Don't force one-value-per-line where the team would naturally write one sentence.
List required Capability Sets for the logged-in user, e.g.:
Data - UI-Data-Export Settings - Edit
Data - UI-Data-Export Settings Lock - Edit
List required data with exact values for everything a step will later assert as a number or fixed status: monetary amounts, statuses, counts, relationships. If a step will verify Available = 200.00, the precondition must establish the starting Available = 150.00 (Allocated 200.00 − Encumbered 50.00). For circulation/inventory flows where the team uses symbolic identifiers (service point S, <barcode>), keep those symbolic in preconditions too — see the two-part value rule under "Steps — Business-Logic Verification". Don't mix invented concrete barcodes into an otherwise symbolic case.
List the starting system state (which app or page the user is on).
Default to a single, unnamed user ("User with following Capability Sets is logged in...", "Staff user is on..."). This matches how the team actually writes cases — most real cases never name an actor at all. Introduce named actors (User A / User B) only when the scenario genuinely requires two distinct roles active at once — e.g. a proxy and a sponsor, a requester and staff processing the request, an admin setting something up for a restricted user to then be tested — and even then, name them by role where possible ("Admin user" / "Restricted user") rather than defaulting to letters. (Actor names, when used, live in Preconditions only — see Steps below for step phrasing.)
For ECS cases: always specify which tenant each data record belongs to (Central or member tenant name), which service points are configured, and what affiliation the user starts with:
Steps — Case Shape (match the golden examples)
Entry: grouped navigation step(s) from the app entry point, each with a real verification (pane opened, exact counts like "3 members selected", buttons with states).
First-open context: when the case lands on its target pane/modal for the first time, verify the key elements relevant to the scenario — columns, labels, button states, counts. A full element-by-element inventory step is only needed when the pane/modal itself is the subject under test.
Business assertions: per-row / per-field verification steps — the core of the case.
Interaction + re-verification (when the scenario involves changing state): perform the change, then re-assert the new exact state (new counts, rows appearing/disappearing).
Sizing: a typical case is 5–10 steps (team median is 9). A case with 3 or fewer steps is a self-review failure unless the scenario is genuinely a single trivial assertion — if it feels too small, the navigation and context verification are probably missing, or the scenario should be merged with a sibling.
Preconditions hold only data and state that exists before the test starts (records, users, configuration, login, starting app). Any action the user performs in the UI during the test — selecting members, switching tabs, opening panes, applying filters — is a step with its own expected result, never a precondition. "User is on with all 3 members selected" is wrong: member selection is a step (and per the golden examples, the selection modal itself gets verified).
Steps — Business-Logic Verification (the most important rules)
Every case must verify the business rule outcome, not just the UI mechanics of triggering it. The trigger flow (menus, modals, Submit) is compressed; the state verification is detailed.
For quantitative assertions: absolute values, never relative. Where a step verifies a specific number — money, counts, percentages, budget buckets — write Encumbered = 0.00, Available = 200.00 (restored to full allocation), never "increased by 50.00" or "decreased accordingly". The executor must be able to compare a number on screen with a number in the case. Finance/Orders/Invoices cases are largely this kind, and the team writes concrete amounts in preconditions too (real example C648502: "Fund A having current budget with money allocation $100 … Allowable expenditure percentage 110%"). But use concreteness only where the exact number is the point. When only a threshold or direction is under test, the team writes it relatively — real example C380517 (insufficient-funds) uses "enter any value exceeding money allocation for Fund B" rather than a specific figure, because the exact amount is irrelevant to what's being verified. Match the number's role: exact when asserted, symbolic/relative when only the boundary matters.
For non-quantitative / circulation-style flows: symbolic placeholders are the team's norm — do not invent fake concrete values. Check in, Check out, Requests, Loans, Inventory cases typically use abstract identifiers the executor fills in at run time: service point S / S1, <barcode>, <title>, <material type>, "Item with at least one open request". Real example (C7148 preconditions): "User with Check In permissions … with service points S and S1 assigned. Item with at least one open request, with top request with pickup service point S." Do NOT fabricate a specific barcode like 12345 or a named service point like SP-A when the team would write S/<barcode> — invented concrete values just add noise the executor has to ignore. Use concrete values here only when the exact value is itself under test (e.g. a barcode with a trailing space, a specific fee amount).
Verify all entities the action touches, per the context file. Example — closing a PO must assert: encumbrance transaction status, budget values, PO status and "Reason for closure" on the PO record, POL receipt/payment statuses.
Prefer explicit column-level verification for business-critical tables. Never "transaction is displayed" for transaction or budget-value tables — assert exact values such as Type = "Encumbrance", , , . A concise summary assertion is acceptable for navigation/lookup tables where it still proves the intended behavior.
Steps — Granularity and Format
Navigation/setup actions may be grouped into one step as a bullet list when they share a single verification point (see examples.md, Example 1, step 1). Verification/assertion actions are never grouped — one assertion target per step.
Break a multi-part action (or precondition) into a lead-in line + bulleted sub-lines — never one run-on sentence. When a single step (or a precondition item) fills several form fields, sets several options, or performs a short chain of sub-actions, write a lead-in clause ending in a colon, then put each field/option/sub-action on its own line as a bullet. This is a direct tester request and matches the real corpus. Do the same for the expected result when it confirms several field values. Example:
Action:
Navigate to Settings > Data Import > Match profiles, click "New" to create a match profile:
- Existing record type = MARC Authority
- Existing record field = "Authority: 001"
- Incoming record field = "MARC Authority: 001"
- Match criteria = "Exactly matches" (the only available option)
- Click "Save as profile & Close"
Expected:
Match profile is saved and appears in the Match profiles list with:
- Name = <profile name>
- Existing record field = "Authority: 001"
- Incoming record field = "MARC Authority: 001"
When posting via API, put each bullet on its own line in the content/expected string (\n- ...) so it renders as a list, not a wall of text. (This is distinct from the "Prose first" rule below: a single coherent observation stays prose; a set of discrete field values / sub-actions becomes bullets.)
Use imperative style in steps: "Click ...", "Navigate to ...", "Select ...", "Open ...". Do not prefix steps with an actor name (no "User clicks") — the actor is defined once in Preconditions (usually just "User"), not repeated in every step.
Don't attach status adjectives to records that don't have that status concept. Write "A MARC Authority record exists with heading X", NOT "An Active MARC Authority record" — MARC Authority / Instance / Holdings / Item records have no "Active" state, and the team doesn't use the word for them (tester feedback). Reserve status words for records where the status is a real, named field value in that area (an Active Budget/Fund/Ledger in Finance, an Active Organization, an order in Pending/Open/Closed). When unsure whether a status term is real for a record type, check the context file rather than adding a default adjective.
Expected result must be a concrete, observable UI or system state.
The Expected Result field states , in as few words as possible ( — not a paragraph explaining which Jira ticket requires that and which other ticket doesn't gate it). Do NOT write meta-commentary like "these two restrictions are explicitly in scope for MODDICONV-436 (not gated by UIDATIMP-1768)…" or multi-sentence justifications about unshipped tickets — that reasoning belongs in the story/PR discussion, not in a test step (tester feedback). If an expected result reads like an explanation or an argument, cut it down to the single checkable state. When a result has several discrete observable facts, use short bullets (per the multi-part rule above), each a terse observable — not a sentence of prose each.
Don'ts ✗
Don't write vague expected results: "works correctly", "is successful", "confirming X is displayed"
Don't pad expected results (or NOTE lines) with rationale, ticket-scope reasoning, or hedging about unshipped work — state the observable result tersely and stop
Don't write relative value assertions: "increased by", "reduced accordingly"
Don't skip expected results for intermediate steps
Don't bundle multiple user roles into one test case — one role per case
Don't omit capability boundary scenarios when the story involves roles or restrictions
Don't use legacy permission names — always use Capability Sets
Don't combine UI element verification with action steps
Don't group assertion steps — grouping is for navigation/setup clicks only
Don't use → inside a single step to chain actions across verification points
Don't use | as a title separator
Don't invent UI labels, statuses, or toast texts that contradict the context file or examples
Self-review gate (run before showing any case)
For each generated case, check:
Case has a navigation/entry step, business assertion step(s), and (if state changes) a re-verification step? A 2–3 step case is a failure by default unless genuinely trivial.
Are preconditions data/state only — no in-test UI actions hidden in them?
Does at least one step assert the business-rule outcome with exact values? If every expected result could pass on a broken feature — rewrite.
Are all touched entities from the context file verified?
All numbers absolute (quantitative cases)? All toasts verbatim?
No invented concrete values in a circulation/inventory case that should use symbolic placeholders (S, <barcode>)?
Functional, compact atomic; per-variant (record type / OS)
Receiving
Functional (99%)
8
~0%
Almost pure Functional; piece flow + Inventory/Finance side effects
Pagination: paginator appears when results exceed page limit; total count matches header
Date range filters: From/To fields appear on accordion expand; results filter correctly
Load/performance (if story involves bulk operations — mark as Extended)
Every entry point for the touched action, and every selection state. When an action is reachable from more than one place in the UI (e.g. an Actions menu on more than one tab, a per-row ellipsis menu, a detail-page Actions menu, a bulk-selection toolbar), the team tests it from all of them, not just the first one found — different entry points can expose different bugs (wrong button state, wrong selection scope). Likewise, when an action supports selecting zero / one / multiple / mixed-valid-and-invalid rows, each selection state is its own scenario candidate: none selected (control disabled), a single valid item, a single invalid item (control disabled or blocked), a mix of valid+invalid (alert / "deselect to continue"), and multiple valid items (does the action apply to each independently, or split/aggregate across them — e.g. an amount divided across multiple selected records). Check the context file for a documented entry-point list before assuming one flow covers the feature; if the context file doesn't document this for the touched action, ask or verify in a real corpus case rather than guessing at one path. (Learned from validating Fees/Fines Waive against real case C465 — see fees-fines.md "Cover every entry point for each action".)
1. Active Ledger exists in Central tenant for the current fiscal year; Fund A (Allocated = 200.00) exists in member tenant (College), related to the Ledger above
2. User is logged in with affiliation set to Central tenant
3. Item with barcode 12345 exists in member tenant, status Available; pickup service point SP-Central is configured in Central tenant
Source = <PO number>
Amount = $50.00
Status = "Released"
Reference preconditions by number in steps: "the unlocked mapping profile from Preconditions #3".
Toast messages: exact text with placeholders, e.g. "<amount> was successfully allocated to the budget <Fund-FY>". Never "success toast is displayed". If the exact text is unknown and not in the context file or examples, write the most likely exact text and flag it: (verify exact wording on first execution).
Keep expected results short and observable — never pad them with rationale, ticket-scope reasoning, or hedging essays.
what the executor should see
"Edit" and "Delete" are absent from the Actions menu
HARD RULE — a verification of 2+ discrete field = value pairs (or ANY field=value where a value is itself a long phrase/sentence) is ALWAYS a lead-in line + bullets, never a semicolon run-on. This overrides "Prose first" below. A record/detail-view/summary check that reads a list of fields is an inventory, not one observation. (Two short facts like a toast + a resulting state may stay prose joined by a semicolon — as in the golden Example 1 — but the moment you're listing named fields, or one value is a full sentence, bullet it.) ❌ NEVER write:
Expected: Detail view shows Name = "X"; Description = "…"; Action = "Delete"; FOLIO record type = "Authority"; linked Field mapping profile = "X"
✅ ALWAYS write:
Expected: Action profile detail view shows:
- Name = "X"
- Description = "…"
- Action = "Delete"
- FOLIO record type = "Authority"
- Linked Field mapping profile = "X"
A chain of A = …; B = …; C = … separated by semicolons is the exact "сплошняк" the tester keeps rejecting — semicolon-joined field lists are the trigger. If you typed a second ; <Field> =, convert the whole thing to bullets.
Prose first only for a single coherent observation. The team packs a single observation into one sentence — e.g. "Modal appears with message Route (<material type>) (Barcode: <barcode>) to <Service point S>. Print slip is checked by default." That is one modal message + its default state, not a field inventory, so it stays prose. Prose is for: a toast, a modal message, a status change, a single field value, or 2–3 tightly-related facts that read as one natural sentence. The moment the result becomes a list of independently-checkable field values, columns, or budget buckets, switch to bullets (see the HARD RULE above). Don't explode a single coherent observation into bullets just because it mentions three nouns — but don't cram a real field-list into one line either.
For modal dialogs, verify the elements relevant to the scenario inline with the trigger step. Add a dedicated full-inventory step only when the modal itself is the subject under test, or when validating a complex enabled/disabled state matrix.
For list/table verifications, list the exact columns expected.
When a modal has interactive buttons that change form state (Swap, Recalculate, Calculate), add a dedicated scenario for that button — fields, error messages, and button states must update correctly after clicking it.
When a step has a genuine execution caveat, add one short NOTE: sentence inside the expected result — not a paragraph. A NOTE: is for a real caveat that changes how the executor judges pass/fail (e.g. NOTE: known display bug MODX-123 may show "Updated" — verify at the record), never a place to explain ticket scope, hedge about unshipped work, or justify the assertion. If you're tempted to write two or more sentences of NOTE, delete it — the expected state itself should carry the information.
For ECS cases: after every action in one tenant, add a verification step in the other tenant if the story requires cross-tenant consistency. Name the tenant explicitly in both action and expected result. Tenant switching is its own step with its own expected result.
If the action has more than one entry point or supports single/multiple/mixed selection, are those enumerated as separate scenarios rather than tested from just one path?
Expected results are prose unless a true item-inventory justifies bullets (not exploded into bullets just for mentioning 3 nouns)?
Every expected result is a terse observable state — no rationale, ticket-scope reasoning, or multi-sentence NOTE essays? (If a result reads like an explanation, cut it.)
Multi-field action steps and multi-fact expected results are broken into a lead-in line + short bullets, not a run-on wall of text?
No expected result lists named fields with semicolons — 2+ field = value pairs, or any field with a long/sentence value, are bulleted (a toast + one resulting state may stay prose)?
Preconditions are flat — the starting page/state and every data record are their own top-level numbered items, never nested as sub-bullets under a capability set (sub-bullets list only capability sets)?
refs = the item(s) this case actually verifies (bug/tech-debt/story/multiple), no invented story key?
Steps reference "Preconditions #N" where data is used?
Steps use imperative style, no actor prefix; single unnamed user unless two roles are genuinely required?
Verification density comparable to references/examples.md?
Step Patterns from the Backlog
Common patterns first. Two rare patterns (multi-tab, DevTools/Network) are at the end of this section, marked accordingly — skip them unless the story explicitly requires that exact scenario.
Grouped navigation (single verification point):
1. Action:
- Click "Consortium manager" app button in the header
- Click "Select members" button
- Check all members
- Click "Save & close" button
Expected:
- "Consortium manager" app main page is opened including:
- "Settings" pane with the settings list in alphabetical order
- "3 members selected" text
- "Select members" button (active)
Navigating to a page:
1. Action: Navigate to Settings > Data export > Field mapping profiles
Expected: "Field mapping profiles" pane is displayed with "New" button, search box, and table with profiles
Always use > as the navigation separator: Settings > Inventory > Call number browse.
Opening an Actions menu:
2. Action: Click "Actions" menu on the mapping profile view form
Expected: Menu expands and displays the following options: Edit, Duplicate, Delete
Confirming a modal:
3. Action: Click "Delete" button on "Delete mapping profile" modal
Expected: Modal closes, toast message "Mapping profile <name> has been successfully deleted" is displayed, profile is removed from the list
Verifying a transaction/table row (column-level):
4. Action: Navigate to Finance app > Fund A > Fund A-FY-current budget > "Transactions" accordion and open the encumbrance row for the PO from Preconditions #4
Expected: Transaction details pane displays:
- "Type" = "Encumbrance"
- "Source" = <PO number> (hyperlink to the PO)
- "Amount" = $50.00
- "Status" = "Released"
- "Initial encumbrance" = $50.00
- "Expended" = $0.00
Verifying budget values (absolute):
5. Action: Check the budget summary for Fund A-FY-current
Expected: - "Allocated" = $200.00
- "Encumbered" = $0.00
- "Available" = $200.00 (restored to full allocation)
Verifying table columns:
6. Action: Verify columns in the "Field mapping profiles" table
Expected: Table includes the following columns: Name, FOLIO record type, Format, Updated, Updated by, Status
File export flow:
1. Action: Click "or choose file" button on the Jobs pane and submit a .csv file with UUIDs
Expected: "Select job profile to run the export" modal opens with list of job profiles, search box, and disabled "Search" button
2. Action: Click "Default holdings export job profile"
Expected: "Are you sure you want to run this job?" modal opens with dropdown list, "Cancel" button (enabled), "Run" button (disabled)
3. Action: Select "Holdings" from the dropdown list
Expected: "Run" button becomes enabled
4. Action: Click "Run" button
Expected: Job starts; progress bar is visible in "Running" section; after completion, "Logs" pane displays new row with .mrc file as hyperlink, "Completed" status, Total = 5, Exported = 5, Failed = 0
Inline edit in table (pencil icon):
1. Action: Click the "Edit" (pencil) icon next to the "Call numbers (all)" row in the table
Expected: "Call number types" column of that row switches to an enabled multi-select dropdown; "Cancel" button (enabled) and "Save" button (disabled) appear in the "Actions" column
2. Action: Click "Cancel" button in the "Actions" column
Expected: Row returns to read-only state; no changes are saved
Multi-select dropdown verification:
1. Action: Click the multi-select dropdown in the "Call number types" column
Expected: Dropdown expands and displays all available options in alphabetical order; each option has a checkbox; no options are pre-selected
2. Action: Select options one by one from the multi-select dropdown
Expected: Each selected option appears in the input field; dropdown remains open after each selection; "Save" button becomes enabled after at least one option is selected
3. Action: Remove all selected options from the multi-select dropdown
Expected: Input field is empty; "Save" button becomes disabled again
Drag and drop (reordering):
1. Action: Hover over the drag handle (six-dots icon) next to the custom field record
Expected: "Change custom field order" tooltip appears; cursor changes to grab
2. Action: Drag the custom field record to a new position in the list
Expected: Custom field moves to the new position; order is updated in the list
Tenant switching (ECS cases):
1. Action: Switch affiliation to Central tenant via the service point menu (top right) > Switch active affiliation
Expected: Active tenant changes to Central; page reloads showing Central tenant context
Cross-tenant verification (ECS cases):
1. Action: Switch affiliation to member tenant and open Loan details page for Item 1 via Circulation log
Expected: Loan details page opened in member tenant; renewal action displayed in the actions list; due date matches the due date from the Central tenant loan
Barcode scanning — patron (Circulation):
1. Action: Open "Check out" app and enter patron barcode on the "Scan patron card" pane, then click "Enter"
Expected: Patron scanned; patron name and details displayed on the left pane
Barcode scanning — item (Circulation):
2. Action: Enter item barcode on the "Scan items" pane and click "Enter"
Expected: Item scanned; loan created; item row appears in the scanned items list with status "Checked out"
Accordion expansion:
1. Action: Expand "Loans" accordion on the user details page
Expected: "Loans" accordion expands and displays "# open loans" and "# closed loans" hyperlinks
2. Action: Click "# closed loans" hyperlink
Expected: "Loans" page opens with "Closed loans" tab active; loan from Preconditions #3 is displayed in the list
Search & filter pane verification:
1. Action: Click "View all" button in the "Logs" pane
Expected: Page updates with "Search & filter" pane on the left and "Logs" main pane; "Search & filter" pane contains:
- "ID" dropdown
- Search box
- "Search" button (disabled)
- "Reset all" button (disabled)
- "Errors in export" accordion (expanded)
- "Started running" accordion (collapsed)
- "Ended running" accordion (collapsed)
- "Job profile" accordion (collapsed)
- "User" accordion (collapsed)
Always list all filter accordions with their initial expanded/collapsed state, and Search/Reset buttons with their initial enabled/disabled state.
Pagination verification:
1. Action: Scroll to the bottom of the results table
Expected: Paginator is displayed below the table; page navigation controls are visible; total records count matches the number shown in the header
Date range filter (date picker):
1. Action: Expand "Started running" accordion in the "Search & filter" pane
Expected: "Started running" accordion expands and displays "From" and "To" date/time fields
2. Action: Fill in "From" and "To" date fields, then click "Apply"
Expected: Results table shows only records within the specified date range; records count updates accordingly
Rare patterns below — use only when the story explicitly requires this exact scenario.
Multi-tab testing (only when the story explicitly tests concurrent tabs):
1. Action: Duplicate the current browser tab while the edit form is open
Expected: Edit form opens in the second tab showing the same state as the first tab
2. Action: Save changes in the first tab
Expected: Changes saved successfully in the first tab
3. Action: Switch to the second tab and attempt to save different changes
Expected: [expected conflict/success behavior per story requirements]
DevTools / Network verification (only when the story requires verifying API response or hidden fields):
1. Action: Open browser DevTools (F12) and navigate to the Network tab
Expected: DevTools pane is open; Network tab is active and recording requests
2. Action: Perform the action that triggers the relevant API call
Expected: Network tab captures the /custom-fields request; response body contains [expected field/value]; UI does NOT display [hidden field]
Test Group Rules
Smoke — Core feature works at all. The single most critical happy path that would immediately break the feature if it failed. Typically 1 case per feature area.
Critical Path — Essential functionality users depend on daily: create, edit, delete, key permissions and capability boundary checks, export/import flows, status transitions, business-rule verifications.
Extended — Less frequent but important: search and filtering, UI element verification, page title checks, edge cases, negative cases, load/performance, complex multi-step workflows.
Pattern observed in backlog: most cases are Critical Path or Extended. Smoke is rare (1-2 per feature area).
Metadata Fields Reference
Resolve IDs at runtime. Dropdown fields (Type, Priority, Release, Test Group, Execution Type, Dev Team, Customer Name, Automation Scope/Team/For) take a numeric option ID, not the label string — sending a label returns 400 Field :<name> is not a valid natural number. Look up the current IDs with GET /index.php?/api/v2/get_priorities, get_case_types, and get_case_fields. Checkbox fields take a JSON boolean (true / false). The option IDs below are a snapshot from foliotest.testrail.io and may change — always confirm via the API.
Required fields:custom_test_group and custom_automation_type (labelled "Execution Type"). A case will not post without them.
Standing defaults (do not ask the user):ECS Unsupported = false on every case, and every case gets the "AI" label. Set ECS Enabled = true only when the story explicitly tests cross-tenant / ECS behavior.
Resolve via get_case_types. Current: Functional=6, Other=7 (also Acceptance=1, Regression=9, Smoke & Sanity=11). Type is area-dependent: acquisitions (Orders/Invoices/Finance/Organizations/Mediated) skew Functional; most circulation/ERM/export areas (Loans/Fees&Fines/Bulk Edit/Agreements/License/Data Export/OAI-PMH/etc.) skew Other; several are ~50/50. Use the dominant Type of the target area's row, or sample the area's section if it's not listed.
Priority
priority_id
dropdown (id)
—
Resolve via get_priorities. Current: Low=1, Medium=2, High=3, Critical=4. Calibration: a core daily-workflow path whose failure breaks the feature (main check-in/check-out fulfillment, opening/paying an order, posting an invoice) → Critical. Important-but-not-blocking function (edit/duplicate, capability boundaries, secondary flows) → High. Search/filter, UI-element checks, edge/negative cases → Medium. Rarely Low. Don't default everything to High — the team reserves Critical for the paths that would halt the app.
Required. Automated=1, Manual=2, Karate=3, Unit=4, Backend Component=5 (TestRail label is "Execution Type"; API key is custom_automation_type)
User Journey
custom_user_journey
checkbox (bool)
false
Set true when the case is a journey/lifecycle case — one case walking a multi-step flow through several checkpoints or outcomes (e.g. check in an item with an open request through both the in-transit and hold-shelf outcomes plus slip reprints; order open → receive → pay). Keep false for atomic feature/element cases. This flag must agree with the case shape you chose in "Journey vs atomic cases" — a journey case with User Journey = false is a self-review failure.
Multi-Tenant
custom_multi_tenant
checkbox (bool)
false
true / false
Bug Created
custom_bug_created
checkbox (bool)
false
true / false
Unstable
custom_unstable
checkbox (bool)
false
true / false
ECS Enabled
custom_ecs_enabled
checkbox (bool)
false
Set to true when the story explicitly tests ECS/cross-tenant behavior. Otherwise false.
ECS Unsupported
custom_ecs_unsupported
checkbox (bool)
false
Always false. Never ask the user.
Capabilities Ready
custom_capabilities_ready
checkbox (bool)
true
true / false
Dev Team
custom_dev_team
dropdown (id)
—
From "Development Team" in the story. e.g. Concorde=1, Firebird=3, Folijet=4, Spitfire=6, Thor=7, Thunderjet=8, Vega=9, Volaris=13, Citation=18, Eureka=21 (full list via get_case_fields)
Customer Name
custom_customer_name
dropdown (id)
—
Optional. All=1, MOBIUS/GALILEO=2, LOC=3 — set only when the story targets a specific customer
Automation Scope
custom_automation_scope
dropdown (id)
—
Optional; omit if N/A. Review by MQA=1, Review by PO=2, Automation Ready=3, Not an automation candidate=4, Mriya scope=5, Karate Approved=6, Karate Not Applicable=7, FE scope=8 (no "None" option)
Automated For
custom_case_automated_in
dropdown (id)
—
Optional; omit if N/A. Old releases=1, R2 2024 Ramsons=2, R1 2025 Sunflower=3, R2 2025 Trillium=4
Automation Team
custom_automation_team
dropdown (id)
—
Optional; omit if N/A. TaaS=1, Mriya=2, FE team=3 (no "None" option)
References
refs
string
—
The work item(s) this case verifies, comma-separated. Often a Bug or Tech-Debt ticket rather than a story, and may span several projects (e.g. UIF-525, MODFIN-391). Do not invent a story key when none exists; do not auto-add unrelated links pulled in via enrichment.
Labels
labels
array
["AI"]
Always add the "AI" label to every case. Pass label ID(s) — resolve via get_labels/{project_id} (on foliotest.testrail.io, "AI" = id 67) — or the title string "AI".
TestRail API Integration
Credentials
Read credentials using this fallback chain (try in order, stop at first hit):
.env file in the repository root — parse KEY=VALUE pairs
Never ask the user for credentials — try all three silently. If all three fail — report which keys are missing and stop.
Jira MCP Integration
When the user provides a Jira ticket ID instead of pasting a User Story:
Use the Jira MCP tool to fetch the issue by ID
Extract: Summary, Description, Acceptance Criteria, Development Team, Fix Version
Use the issue key as refs value
Use Development Team field for custom_dev_team
If Jira MCP is not available — ask the user to paste the User Story manually
Proceed with the Mandatory Workflow as normal
Optional: read existing cases from a TestRail section
If the user provides a Section ID for the area, fetch up to 20 existing cases as an additional style/content reference (the primary references are the context file and examples.md):
GET {TESTRAIL_URL}/index.php?/api/v2/get_cases/14§ion_id={section_id}&limit=20
Authorization: Basic base64(TESTRAIL_USER:TESTRAIL_API_KEY)
Extract from custom_preconds and custom_steps_separated: exact UI labels, toast texts, precondition depth, step granularity. New cases must match the depth and format of the existing cases in this section. If no Section ID is provided, do not ask for one until the posting step.
Posting preview
After generation and self-review, ask: "Please provide the TestRail Section (folder) ID where the cases should be posted." Then show:
Ready to post 5 test cases to Section ID: XXXXX
1. User with Edit capability set can create unlocked mapping profile — Other / High / Critical Path
2. User with Edit capability set can edit unlocked mapping profile — Other / High / Critical Path
3. User with Edit capability set cannot delete mapping profile referenced in job profile — Other / High / Critical Path
4. Mapping profile "Status" column shows "Locked" after lock checkbox is enabled — Other / Medium / Extended
5. User with View-only capability set cannot see "New" or "Actions" buttons — Other / High / Critical Path
Confirm? (yes / no / edit)
Wait for explicit confirmation, then post.
Add case request
POST /index.php?/api/v2/add_case/{section_id}
Content-Type: application/json
Authorization: Basic <base64(email:api_key)>
{
"title": "User with Edit capability set can delete unlocked mapping profile not referenced in job profile",
"type_id": 7,
"priority_id": 3,
"refs": "MODFIN-273",
"custom_preconds": "1. User with following Capability Sets is logged in:\n - Data - UI-Data-Export Settings - Edit\n2. Unlocked mapping profile NOT referenced in any job profile exists\n3. User is on Settings > Data export > Field mapping profiles",
"custom_steps_separated": [
{
"content": "Click on the row with the unlocked mapping profile from Preconditions #2",
"expected": "Mapping profile view form is displayed; \"Lock profile\" checkbox is disabled, unchecked; \"Actions\" menu is enabled"
},
{
"content": "Click \"Actions\" menu",
"expected": "Menu expands and displays the following options: Edit, Duplicate, Delete"
},
{
"content": "Click \"Delete\" option",
"expected": "\"Delete mapping profile\" modal opens with: \"The mapping profile <name> will be deleted.\" text, \"Cancel\" button (enabled), \"Delete\" button (enabled, focused)"
},
{
"content": "Click \"Cancel\" button",
"expected": "\"Delete mapping profile\" modal closes; mapping profile view form is displayed"
},
{
"content": "Click \"Actions\" menu > \"Delete\" > \"Delete\" in modal",
"expected": "Modal closes; toast message \"Mapping profile <name> has been successfully deleted\" is displayed; \"Field mapping profiles\" pane shows list without deleted profile"
}
],
"custom_release": 21,
"custom_test_group": 2,
"custom_automation_type": 2,
"custom_dev_team": 4,
"custom_customer_name": 1,
"custom_multi_tenant": false,
"custom_user_journey": false,
"custom_bug_created": false,
"custom_unstable": false,
"custom_ecs_enabled": false,
"custom_ecs_unsupported": false,
"custom_capabilities_ready": true,
"labels": [67]
}
The dropdown values above are option IDs, not labels. Resolve via get_case_fields / get_priorities / get_case_types. custom_ecs_unsupported is always false; custom_ecs_enabled is true only for ECS stories. "labels": [67] is the "AI" label, always added to every case.
Success output
After posting all cases, report:
✅ Posted 5 test cases to Section 1042:
C123456 — User with Edit capability set can create unlocked mapping profile
...
Error handling
HTTP status
Action
401
Credentials error — check .env or ~/.folio-credentials
400
Show the full error body and identify which field caused it
404
Confirm the Section ID exists and is accessible
Any failure
Do not skip silently — report the failed case title and full error message
Fallback Output (no API access)
If posting via API fails entirely, output each case in this format:
---
Title: [title]
Type: Other
Priority: [High | Medium | ...]
Release: Umbrellaleaf
Test Group: [Smoke | Critical Path | Extended]
Execution Type: Manual
Dev Team: [from story]
References: [jira_ids]
Preconditions:
1. User with following Capability Sets is logged in:
- [Capability Set 1]
2. [Required data with exact values]
3. User is on [app/page]
Steps:
1. Action: [step]
Expected: [result]
---
Capability Sets format: Data / Procedural / Settings / Module - <Module> <Resource> - <Action> — see Preconditions in Writing Guidelines for a worked example.
For API field IDs: GET /index.php?/api/v2/get_case_fields
Quick Reference Checklist
Context file for the area was read; story mapped to Key Business Rules
references/examples.md was read; verification density matches
Title follows [Actor] [verb] [object] [condition] pattern and is unique
All metadata fields filled; Dev Team from the story; refs = the item(s) this case verifies (bug / tech-debt / story / multiple keys as appropriate) — not an invented story key, not every enrichment link
Preconditions numbered, Capability Sets only, exact starting values for everything asserted later
Steps use imperative style, no actor prefix; reference "Preconditions #N"
Business-rule outcome asserted with absolute values; all touched entities verified
Business-critical tables verified column by column; toasts verbatim; modal checks match scenario focus
No vague expected results ("works", "is correct", "is successful", "confirming")
ECS cases:ECS Enabled = true; tenant named in every cross-tenant step
