cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Adding a second test environment/stage

SOLVED
Highlighted

Adding a second test environment/stage

Currently, we are running a three stage environment of Dev, QA and Production and using promotion to move changes through the life cycle. Our currentl issue is per our methodology QA actually has an addition stage, User Acceptance Testing (UAT). To get the best productivity, we would like to start UAT as soon as QA does some standard sanity testing at which point we would like QA to continue their formal testing while the Users do theit UAT. So as to prevent the two groups tripping on each other we want them to use the same code base in separate environments adding an additionla UAT server to the current 3 stage model, so promotion would be DEV-->QA-->UAT-->Production.

 

Does anyone have a similar requirement and have they implemented this or another solution with success?

 

Thanks in Advance

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Highlighted

Re: Adding a second test environment/stage

Hi Neil,

your approach sounds very familiar to me. Right now we are setting up the set of DEV-->TEST-->PROD for one of our implementations, In DEV we are designing and developing, in TEST the key users are the main players, to valdiate the developed and configured results, and then - when all that is fine - we promote.

I think your approach is also good. Depends on complexity of changes, and the formal need in your organisation to test and approve system changes.

In terms of further support, please let me know which questions you have exactly.

Volker

View solution in original post

1 REPLY 1
Highlighted

Re: Adding a second test environment/stage

Hi Neil,

your approach sounds very familiar to me. Right now we are setting up the set of DEV-->TEST-->PROD for one of our implementations, In DEV we are designing and developing, in TEST the key users are the main players, to valdiate the developed and configured results, and then - when all that is fine - we promote.

I think your approach is also good. Depends on complexity of changes, and the formal need in your organisation to test and approve system changes.

In terms of further support, please let me know which questions you have exactly.

Volker

View solution in original post

Announcements