Cloud Kicks is creating a new lead conversion process in Sales Cloud. During a recent sprint, the business analyst created user stories related to the Opportunity object. Test scripts were created for the lead conversion process. All of the test scripts passed and the new functionality was deployed. After deployment, end users reported error messages when manually creating new Opportunities.
Which area of user acceptance testing (UAT) was overlooked?
When creating a new lead conversion process, it is essential to consider the functionality of interconnected objects. In this case, the Opportunity object was directly affected. The testing should have included all related objects and their interactions to ensure smooth operation across the system. The issue likely arose because the user acceptance testing did not account for the functionality and interaction between leads and opportunities, which are interconnected in the lead conversion process.
May be C
reading the question.... business analyst created user stories related to the Opportunity object. Test scripts were created for the lead conversion process.......... simple Sales process started with leads and ends in opportunities.... hence both are objects are related to sales process or Interrelated....but the user may create a lead and convert to opportunity or may create a direct opportunity if system permits.... so both scenarios should be part of UAT on Sales process hence ... Functionality on interconnected objects should be part of UAT Correct Answer is B
questions says: "Cloud Kicks is creating a new lead conversion process in Sales Cloud" In my POV BA should include Lead object too. It's a best pratice to analyse the impact in whole org.
B is correct
The answer is B. Functionality on interconnected objects should be part of UAT. The lead conversion process involves multiple objects, such as Leads and Opportunities, and it's important to test the interaction and functionality between these interconnected objects. By solely focusing on the Opportunities object and neglecting the interconnected objects, the UAT did not adequately cover all aspects of the lead conversion process, leading to the error messages experienced by the end users.
Option A, several teams should be part of UAT to represent multiple viewpoints, may be important to consider in some cases. However, it is not directly related to the issue described in the scenario, which is related to the testing of interconnected objects and processes. Option C, end users who are experts in that functionality should participate in UAT, is important and relevant to the scenario. However, it does not directly address the issue of testing the functionality of interconnected objects and processes. Option B, functionality on interconnected objects should be part of UAT, is the best answer because it directly addresses the issue described in the scenario. Testing the functionality of interconnected objects and processes as part of UAT is critical to identifying any issues or gaps in the system and ensuring that the end-to-end process works as intended.
There is no rule that several teams should participate in UAT, so A is incorrect. Same with B, there is no rule that interconnected objects should be part of UAT. UAT is a testing for and by users, they should accept it, so in this cases the reason may be that real users didn't accept User Acceptance testing, so the answer is C
I believe C is the one that makes more sense.
Shouldn't the answer be A? I might have misunderstood the question but it seems that afterall some end users with different needs are getting error messages due to their specific use cases. In that case, maybe several different teams should be included to have different viewpoints covered?
Correct answer is C
I think the correct answer is C. Because, The issue was the END user was not able to Create OPPORTUNITY manually. No connection with object lead.
Should be C