Hi,
When you say better, I'm not sure what you want to be better, but, for me I'm thinking about ease to maintain and reporting:
- Keeping the test cases generic and not adding a table name will enable you to clone the test cases multiple times and add it to other test cycles
- But, if you're keeping the generic test cases in Excel and then adding table names before importing, this would also work well - it depends which is easier to manage and maintain.
- I suspect Excel will be the easier of the two for find/replace and edit features - those would not be so easy in Scale.
- You could create a custom field or use the Component or Label fields in your cloned/imported test cases to enable identification of the table and its associated set of tables.
- Example:
- You have 500 test cases for 500 tables
- The test cases are generic, e.g. "Check that this table has data"
- The test cases have the table name (or some grouping information) stored in a custom field or Component/Label field, e.g. "Table 1", and/or "Audit Tables"
- You add the 500 test cases to a Test Cycle for execution
- You can now create dashboards or reports that:
- Report execution progress for the Test Cycle overall, and
- Report execution progress for individual/groups of test cases, e.g. Audit Tables progress
Let me know if I can help further
