ScienceSoft and an anonymised online retailer: Shopify functional testing case analysed

Verdict: what is checkable

The evidence grade (this site's label for how a case is sourced: primary with client or press confirmation, secondary when vendor-hosted only.) is secondary: the only source is the vendor's own page; of 3 metrics, 0 are verifiable yes, 0 partial and 3 no. [ev-1708]

Client profile as published

Client
a producer of phytopharmaceuticals based in Canada (the vendor's description; the vendor does not name the client)
Segment
Ecommerce and D2C (direct to consumer: a brand that sells its own products online to shoppers without a retailer in between.)
Region
Canada
Channels
ecommerce
Size indicators
none given

The client description and size indicators are quoted from the source; segment, region and channels are this site's classification. [ev-1708]

Systems in scope

  • Ecommerce platform (Shopify): named in the Challenge section ("an ecommerce website based on Shopify") and in the technologies list
  • Payments: named in the Solution section testing scope ("selecting a payment method and making a payment")

Where the source names each system is quoted or summarised from the case page. [ev-1708]

Problem as stated

The client built a Shopify store to sell its herbal products online and wanted it checked on desktop and mobile devices. Its products carry quantity limits per order, so the client needed proof that the ordering flow enforced those limits. The client had no complete, documented requirements for the site, so the vendor held meetings with the client to recover them before writing tests. [ev-1708]

quantity limitations per order (quoted from the source)

Approach

Testing types
functional (main scope: functional)
Team shape
a Test Lead who wrote the test plan and a test engineer who ran functional testing
Duration
not stated
Engagement model
not stated
Tooling named in the source
Confluence Jira

Metrics claimed

Metrics as published, with who claims each and what this site could check.
MetricValueUnitClaimed byVerifiableEvidence
smoke testing checklist120+checksvendornoev-1709
functional test cases designed and executed150test casesvendornoev-1710
defects found71defectsvendornoev-1711

What the case does not say

  • Baseline before the engagement.
  • Duration over which the metric held.
  • Team size on both sides.
  • Cost.
  • Whether the client is still a client.
  • Date of the work.

Reading notes for a buyer

This case speaks to the scenario “First outsourced QA team for a mid-size retailer” and feeds dimension D1 (Retail case study evidence) of the methodology. A question to put to ScienceSoft:

How many of the reported defects affected the cart, checkout or payment steps, and how were they rated for severity? [ev-1708]

Source and verification

Source
Phytopharmaceutical Ecommerce Website Testing Covering 150 Test Cases
Published
not dated by the vendor
Verified
2026-10-30
Evidence grade
secondary
Corroborating sources
none found
Evidence records for this case.
IdClaimSourceClassGradePublishedVerified
ev-1708Phytopharmaceutical Ecommerce Website Testing Covering 150 Test CasesPhytopharmaceutical Ecommerce Website Testing Covering 150 Test Casesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1709To carry out smoke testing, a test engineer designed and executed a checklist comprising 120+ checks.Phytopharmaceutical Ecommerce Website Testing Covering 150 Test Casesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1710In accordance with the recovered requirements, the test engineer designed and executed 150 test cases (including a set of test cases verifying specifically the adherence to the set quantity limitations per order) to test the website functionality in detail.Phytopharmaceutical Ecommerce Website Testing Covering 150 Test Casesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1711The test engineer discovered 71 defects and reported each to the Client via Confluence Jira.Phytopharmaceutical Ecommerce Website Testing Covering 150 Test Casesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30

Vendor profile: ScienceSoft. System facet: Ecommerce platform testing vendors.

Positions on this page are computed from the methodology published at /methodology/ and from the evidence records linked on this page. Case study figures are the vendor's or the client's claims as published at the linked source; the "verifiable" column states what this site could check. The site does not recommend vendors, does not accept paid placement and does not publish rates. Last computed: 2026-11-03.

Published by the editor of retailqavendors.com. Last reviewed .