The easiest route - we'll conduct a 15 minute phone interview and write up the review for you.
Use our online form to submit your review. It's quick and you can post anonymously.
We create test cases, and then we need to plan a new task plan feature from the existing task case file and execute the test results, which will be saved in RQM. So that is how we are using the tool every day. So if one day we go to the office and find out we have been signed out, we cannot do anything.
The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing.
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute.
Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration.
RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.
I have been using the solution since 2019.
It is a stable solution. We did face some issues, but it was on the server side. As long as the server is set right, then it has been good.
It is a scalable solution. We have one project where I have over 3,000 test cases, and two thousand are automated. So far, it has been good.
The customer service and support team has been good. Initially, it took some time for them to plan, but I wonder if it happened because I asked too many questions. Recently, at the end of the two years, they have been pretty fast in replying to my ticket.
Positive
Before using IBM, we used Stoneridge, Word, or Excel to keep track of the test cases.
I think it's a good and enterprising one. It's good for some people, and some say it is expensive. But for me, I have to say I don't consider finance because that's not my level, but from a usability perspective, I think it is good.
I am a tester, so I use this solution from a testing point of view.
RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything.
I like the tracking in the solution.
In a test plan, all of the test cases are flat and there's no hierarchy in it. It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases. Instead of using a test suite or child test plan, I would like to have sessions. For example, we could have a session for eFax fixes, a session for regression, and sessions for new feature testing. I would like to have some hierarchy in it.
I think the solution takes a lot of database space. It has some requirements on the server. Sometimes when there is a lot of information needed, it starts to slow down. I know that there is a way to improve the performance and make some changes on the server side.
The technical support has been pretty good. I would rate it as a five out of five.
Positive
We haven't used the full functionality of the solution yet. We have only used the tracking for a couple of the applications. We haven't used it widely. We are expecting to upgrade the solution and we may use it more after upgrading.
I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten.
