Test Completion Report: [Project or release name]
Test completion report for a project, release or test level. The
structure follows the test completion report information item of
ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3: summary of testing, deviations from the plan,
completion evaluation, metrics, residual risks, lessons learned and a
recommendation. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked
Example.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Document ID | [TCR-PROJECT-001] |
| Project / release | [Project name] [release] |
| Scope of report | [Whole project / System test level / Performance testing] |
| Test plan closed | [TP-PROJECT-001 version x.y] |
| Reporting period | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Approved] |
| Author | [@test-manager] |
| Classification | [Internal / Confidential] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
Approvals
| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|
| Test manager | [@name] | [Approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Product owner | [@name] | [Release / Release with conditions / Do not release] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Engineering lead | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Release manager | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Draft for go/no-go meeting |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Example: Updated after retest of BUG-3412; approved |
Contents
1. Summary and recommendation
1.1 Recommendation
[Release / Release with conditions / Do not release]
Example: Release with conditions. All high-risk features passed; four
of seven completion criteria are fully met, two are met with approved
exceptions and one is not met (see RR-01); one severity-2
defect (BUG-3412) remains open with a documented workaround and a fix
scheduled for 4.2.1 within 10 days.
1.2 Key facts
| Item | Value |
|---|
| Test cases planned / executed | [412 / 398] |
| Passed / failed / blocked | [389 / 9 / 6] |
| Must-have requirements covered by a passed test | [97 of 98 (99%)] |
| Defects found / fixed / rejected / open | [86 / 68 / 11 / 7] |
| Open by severity (S1 / S2 / S3 / S4) | [0 / 1 / 4 / 2] |
| Escaped defects from previous release found during this cycle | [2] |
1.3 Conditions attached to the recommendation
- [Condition, for example: hotfix 4.2.1 with BUG-3412 fix released by YYYY-MM-DD.]
- [Condition, for example: support team briefed on the workaround before go-live.]
2. Testing performed
| Test sub-process | Builds tested | Environment | Period | Result |
|---|
| Unit and integration | All merges to release/4.2 | CI | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | 3,412 automated tests, 100% pass on final build |
| System test cycle 1 | 4.2.0-rc1 | System test | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | 61 defects raised |
| System test cycle 2 | 4.2.0-rc3 | System test | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | Exit criteria met with exceptions |
| Performance | 4.2.0-rc3 | Performance | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | p95 within SLA at 120% forecast peak |
| UAT | 4.2.0-rc3 | UAT | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD | Signed off by finance and operations |
| [Sub-process] | [Build] | [Env] | [Period] | [Result] |
2.1 Features not tested
| Feature or requirement | Reason | Consequence | Covered elsewhere |
|---|
| Example: Bulk export (SRS-FR-118) | Storage emulator unavailable in system test | Not verified end to end | Unit tests only; see RR-01 |
| Example: Legacy coupon import | Unchanged since 4.0, low risk | No regression run this cycle | Nightly automated suite |
| [Feature] | [Reason] | [Consequence] | [Where] |
2.2 Test environment observations
Record availability problems, configuration differences from production
and data issues that affected the results, so readers can judge how far
the results carry over to production.
- Example: System test environment unavailable for 1.5 days in week 3 (database migration failure); cycle 2 extended by one day.
- Example: Payment sandbox does not simulate issuer timeouts; timeout handling tested with a stub only.
- [Observation and its effect on results.]
3. Deviations from the test plan
| ID | Planned | Actual | Reason | Effect on confidence | Approved by |
|---|
| DV-01 | Example: Soak test 8 hours | Soak test 4 hours | Environment shared with another release | Memory leaks with slow growth may be missed; production memory alert added | [@pm] |
| DV-02 | Example: Device lab covers 12 devices | 9 devices | Three devices failed | Android 12 low-end coverage reduced; beta channel monitoring extended | [@test-manager] |
| [DV-nn] | [Planned] | [Actual] | [Reason] | [Effect] | [@name] |
4. Test completion evaluation
| Criterion (from plan) | Target | Actual | Status | Comment |
|---|
| High-risk test cases executed | 100% | 100% | Met | |
| All planned test cases executed | >= 95% | 96.6% | Met | 14 low-priority cases not run |
| Pass rate of executed tests | >= 98% | 97.7% | Met with exception | 9 failures linked to 7 open S3/S4 defects |
| Open S1 defects | 0 | 0 | Met | |
| Open S2 defects | 0 or approved workaround | 1 with workaround | Met with exception | BUG-3412, see 6.2 |
| Must-have requirements covered by passed test | 100% | 99% | Not met | SRS-FR-118 blocked by environment, see 7 |
| Performance targets at forecast peak | Met | Met | Met | |
5. Test metrics
5.1 Execution summary by feature area
| Feature area | Planned | Executed | Passed | Failed | Blocked | Not run |
|---|
| Example: Checkout | 120 | 120 | 117 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Example: Promotions | 64 | 64 | 63 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Example: Account | 88 | 82 | 78 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Example: Warehouse | 140 | 132 | 131 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 412 | 398 | 389 | 9 | 6 | 8 |
5.2 Defect density
Defect density normalises defects by size so components can be compared:
Defect density=size in KLOC changeddefects found
| Component | Defects found | KLOC changed | Density | Previous release |
|---|
| Example: Checkout UI | 31 | 12.4 | 2.5 | 1.8 |
| Example: Pricing service | 18 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 2.0 |
| Example: Orders API | 22 | 9.7 | 2.3 | 2.6 |
| [Component] | [n] | [KLOC] | [d] | [d] |
Example interpretation: Pricing density more than doubled; the rewrite
of the rule engine is the likely cause and is listed as a residual risk.
5.3 Defect trend
Defects opened and closed per week show whether the product was
stabilising at the end of testing. A closing rate above the opening rate
for the final two weeks is expected before release.
| Week | Opened | Closed | Open at end of week |
|---|
| W1 | 24 | 6 | 18 |
| W2 | 31 | 20 | 29 |
| W3 | 19 | 27 | 21 |
| W4 | 8 | 19 | 10 |
| W5 | 4 | 7 | 7 |
Example interpretation: The open count peaked in week 2, when cycle 1
results were triaged, and fell in each of the last three weeks. The
closing rate exceeded the opening rate from week 3 onward, which supports
the view that the product stabilised before the release decision.
5.4 Requirements coverage
Coverage shows how much of the agreed test basis has evidence behind it.
It is reported separately for must-have requirements because the release
decision depends on them.
| Requirement class | Total | Covered by a passed test | Covered, test failed | Not covered | Coverage |
|---|
| Must-have | 98 | 97 | 0 | 1 | 99% |
| Should-have | 54 | 49 | 2 | 3 | 91% |
| Could-have | 21 | 15 | 0 | 6 | 71% |
| [Class] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [%] |
Requirements not covered are listed with the reason in section 7 or in
the deviation log in section 3.
5.5 Other measures
| Measure | Value | Comment |
|---|
| Automated regression suite duration | [38 min] | Within 45-minute budget |
| Flaky tests quarantined | [3] | All tickets assigned |
| Defect detection percentage (previous release, 90 days) | [91%] | Target 90% |
| Test effort planned / actual (person-days) | [69 / 74] | Overrun from third retest cycle |
6. Defects
6.1 Summary by severity
| Severity | Found | Fixed and verified | Rejected or duplicate | Open |
|---|
| S1 Critical | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| S2 Major | 14 | 12 | 1 | 1 |
| S3 Minor | 41 | 33 | 4 | 4 |
| S4 Cosmetic | 28 | 20 | 6 | 2 |
6.2 Outstanding defects
| ID | Title | Severity | Priority | Workaround | Decision | Target fix |
|---|
| BUG-3412 | Example: Gift card plus promotion code shows wrong total until page refresh | S2 | P1 | Refresh summary page; charged amount is correct | Accept for release; fix in 4.2.1 | YYYY-MM-DD |
| BUG-3420 | Example: Sort by date ignores time zone on order history | S3 | P3 | None needed | Accept; backlog | 4.3 |
| [ID] | [Title] | [S] | [P] | [Workaround] | [Decision] | [Release or date] |
7. Residual risks
| ID | Residual risk | Source | Mitigation in production | Accepted by |
|---|
| RR-01 | Example: SRS-FR-118 (bulk export) not verified end to end | Blocked by environment | Feature flag off at launch; enable after verification in staging | [@product-owner] |
| RR-02 | Example: Slow memory growth beyond 4 hours not observed | DV-01 | Memory alert at 80%; automatic restart policy | [@sre-lead] |
| RR-03 | Example: Pricing engine defect density high | 5.2 | Extra monitoring of discount totals for 14 days | [@engineering-lead] |
| [RR-nn] | [Risk] | [Source] | [Mitigation] | [@name] |
8. Test deliverables and archive
| Deliverable | Location | Retention |
|---|
| Test plan and design specifications | [Repository path or wiki link] | [Two years] |
| Test runs and logs | [Test management tool project] | [Two years] |
| Defect reports | [Issue tracker filter] | [Indefinite] |
| Performance results | [Results bucket or report link] | [One year] |
| UAT sign-off | [Document link] | [Regulatory period] |
Test environments released: [system test environment returned to
platform team on YYYY-MM-DD; test data purged].
9. Lessons learned
| ID | Observation | Effect | Action | Owner | Due |
|---|
| LL-01 | Example: Contract tests caught 11 API breaking changes before system test | Saved roughly one test cycle | Extend contract testing to warehouse APIs | [@name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| LL-02 | Example: Shared performance environment caused DV-01 | Reduced soak coverage | Book environment at release planning | [@name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| LL-03 | Example: UAT testers had no training on defect reporting | 20% of UAT reports needed rework | Add 1-hour onboarding to UAT plan | [@name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [LL-nn] | [Observation] | [Effect] | [Action] | [@name] | YYYY-MM-DD |
10. Sign-off
By approving this report, the signatories confirm that the testing
described has been completed or deviations accepted, and that the
residual risks and outstanding defects listed above are accepted for the
release decision recorded below.
| Decision | [Release / Release with conditions / Do not release] |
|---|
| Decision date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Recorded in | [Go/no-go meeting minutes link] |
| Role | Name | Signature or approval reference | Date |
|---|
| Test manager | [@name] | [Reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Product owner | [@name] | [Reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Release manager | [@name] | [Reference] | YYYY-MM-DD |
Standard and licence note
Structure aligned with ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3, Software and systems
engineering: Software testing, Part 3: Test documentation, test
completion report information item. This template is original text
written for this collection and reproduces no text from the standard;
obtain the standard from ISO, IEC or IEEE for its normative requirements.
Template licence: MIT.