Quality engineering / Documented QA execution

Before checkout ships.

The most useful test can be a failure.

Explore the repository

ProShop storefront used in the QA assessment — ACTUAL REPOSITORY SCREENSHOT · THIRD-PARTY APPLICATION

WHAT IT DOES

Risk-based manual and API testing that turned reproducible defects into a clear no-go release recommendation.

MY CONTRIBUTION

Solo QA project: test planning, execution, defect documentation, and release assessment for a third-party shop.

THE INTERESTING DECISION

A traceability matrix connects risks and requirements to cases. Not-run cases stay explicitly visible rather than being counted as successes.

START WITH THE EVIDENCE45

README snapshot: 29 passed, 3 failed, 13 not run.

Inspect the source ↗

BUILT WITH

PostmanJiraManual testingaxe

PROJECT TYPE

Documented QA execution

START HEREREADME & setup

01 / THE IDEA

The most useful test can be a failure.

The problem

Shopping flows must do more than work for a happy-path customer. Order access, validation, and regressions need evidence strong enough to support a release decision.

The approach

The portfolio tests Brad Traversy's ProShop v2 with traceable manual cases, exploratory sessions, API assertions, browser workflows, accessibility scans, and structured defect reporting.

02 / THE SYSTEM AT A GLANCE

Follow the flow.

01Requirements
02Test design
03Manual + API runs
04Defect evidence
05No-Go report

A simplified architecture overview. The repository documents the implementation details.

03 / THE ENGINEERING DECISIONS

Why it's built this way.

Trace requirements to execution

A traceability matrix connects risks and requirements to cases. Not-run cases stay explicitly visible rather than being counted as successes.

Report reproducible defects

Confirmed findings have steps, severity, expected/actual behavior, and evidence; the README records six defects imported into Jira.

Make the release decision explicit

The documented recommendation is No-Go because of cross-customer order disclosure. A successful local performance smoke does not override a critical access-control issue.

04 / WHAT TO LOOK AT

Evidence over adjectives.

ACTUAL RECORDING / QA WALKTHROUGH

Actual repository walkthrough. QA work on Brad Traversy's ProShop v2, not authorship of the shop. Silent screen recording; findings are described in the case study evidence.

Open video in a separate tab

Manual cases45

README snapshot: 29 passed, 3 failed, 13 not run.

API assertions94

README snapshot: 90 passed, 4 failed across 25 requests.

Release decisionNo-Go

Cross-customer order disclosure blocks the release recommendation.

Capabilities and result snapshots follow the project's current README, reviewed October 10, 2026. Read the source

Execution report Traceability matrix Recorded walkthrough

05 / THE HONEST PART

What I'd improve next.

Current boundaries

ProShop is third-party software; this case study showcases QA work, not authorship of the shop.
Thirteen cases remain not run; payment confirmation needs PayPal sandbox configuration.
Reported performance observations describe a local smoke test, not production capacity.

The next iteration

Retest the access-control fix and execute the deferred cases before revisiting release readiness.

Open my SQA & Testing CV

KEEP EXPLORING

Mindplay

Three signals. One hands-free interaction.