Lesson 5 of 5
Testing QM controls end to end
10 min
Listen to this lesson
QM controls exist to say no: no to an unreleased supplier, no to using stock that has not passed inspection, no to a usage decision without a certificate. A QM test pack that only proves the yes paths proves very little. Priya's team builds the Contoso QM pack around the negative outcomes and the stock type that results from each decision.
Test cases
| Case | Expected result | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| PO for a blocked supplier | PO refused or warned as configured | Message text; no PO number created |
| PO over release quantity | Purchasing stopped at the limit | Info record quantities; message |
| GR for an inspected material | Lot 01 created; stock in quality inspection | Lot number, material document, stock by type |
| UD without certificate | UD blocked with an error | Error message; lot status unchanged |
| Order release with 03 active | One in-process lot for the order | Lot number linked to the order |
| GR from production with 04 active | Finished goods in quality inspection stock; delivery not possible | Stock by type; failed delivery attempt |
| Rejecting UD | Stock to blocked; complaint created with tasks | Material document 350; notification number and tasks |
| Return delivery | Blocked stock returned to the supplier | Material document 122 referencing the PO |
A QM control pack for procurement and production.
Evidence: lots and stock types
For every case, the two most important pieces of evidence are the inspection lot (number, origin, status, usage decision and quality score) and the stock type before and after (unrestricted, quality inspection, blocked) for the affected material and plant. Add the material document numbers for each posting, and for negative tests the exact message text. With those, anyone can re-perform the check later.
- BeforeRotor stock in plant 1710 by stock type; open lots for the material
- TriggerGR from Lakeside, or release and receipt of the alternator order
- LotLot number, origin and status recorded
- DecisionUD code, quality score, stock postings
- AfterStock by type compared with the expected movement; negative test attempted
In a system conversion, add a data reconciliation. Count quality info records, materials with active inspection types and open inspection lots in ECC (EP1) and in the converted system, by plant. Open lots at cutover are a particular risk: stock in quality inspection must arrive with its lot, or it can never be released. Luis's cutover plan for Contoso includes a step to bring open lots to a usage decision before the cutover window where possible, and to list the rest.
What would you do?
Every QM test case passes except one: a usage decision without a certificate goes through without an error. The team is short of time. What should Priya do?
Contoso's QM pack runs in SAP Cloud ALM as test cases linked to the procurement and production solution processes, so a failed control appears as a defect against the process it protects. After go-live the same negative tests form the QM part of the release regression in CMR, because a transport that changes a QM control key or an inspection setup can remove a control silently.
- Build QM tests around negative outcomes and the resulting stock type.
- Evidence: lot number, origin, status, UD and score; stock by type before and after; document numbers.
- Cover supplier, receipt, production, stock and follow-up controls.
- In a conversion, reconcile info records, inspection setup and open lots.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. Which two pieces of evidence matter most for each QM test?
2. What should a PO for a blocked supplier produce in a passing test?
3. Why reconcile open inspection lots at cutover?
4. Why keep the negative QM tests in the release regression after go-live?