Thank you for your question. My colleague Sean Johnson wrote a detailed answer to this question that I have cut and pasted below:
One of the more common support inquiries we receive is when a Hexawise generated test case includes "No possible value" for a parameter. The first time you see this, it can be a bit unclear what it means and what you can do to address it.
A "no possible value" in a test case is telling you the test case is providing coverage for a needed pair in some other parameters, and in light of that needed pair your invalid and married pairs are then leaving then no value allowed for the parameter with "no possible value". That sounds confusing, but an example is much easier to understand.An Example
Let's say we have a test plan with just 3 parameters, each with 2 values:
Fruit: Apple, Pear
Car: Toyota, Dodge
Dog: Collie, Mutt
And let's further suppose we have 2 invalid pairs:
if Fruit = Apple then Car cannot = Toyota
if Car = Dodge then Dog cannot = Mutt
This all seems simple, but a hidden problem lurks in this simple
setup. To create 2-way coverage, Hexawise will ensure you've paired
every parameter value with every other parameter value (unless a
constraint says it shouldn't be paired), which in this case means that
Hexawise will necessarily pair Fruit as Apple with Dog as Mutt in at least one test case, since that pairing could be the source of a bug. You probably already see the problem!
In the test case that has Fruit as Apple and Dog as Mutt we need to have a value for the Car parameter. You can't have Car as Toyota, because Apple can't be paired with Toyota, and you can't have Car as Dodge, because Mutt can't be paired with Dodge. So what value can Hexawise provide for Car in this test case? It has no value to provide, so it provides "no possible value".
That's why you can get test cases with "no possible value". Sometimes you can leave them be, sometimes you might want to introduce a "N/A" value for a parameter, and sometimes your invalid and married pairs may need a bit of adjusting. Generally, given the real context of your actual test plan, it is clear which path to take to resolve them.
Let's use a more realistic flight reservation example, to show how the context of your real tests indicates what you should do to resolve instances of "no possible value".
Our flight reservation example test plan has these 5 parameters:
Destination: USA, China, Australia
Class: First, Business, Economy
Reserve a Car: Yes, No
Type of Car: Luxury, Economy
Payment Method: Credit Card, Frequent Flier Miles, Upgrade Coupons
Without any constraints, we're going to get test cases that pair Reserve a Car as No with Type of Car as Luxury. This makes no sense, and even if a tester were just to ignore it, it hides the fact that the nonsensical test case may be the only test case where we attempt to pay for a Luxury car with Frequent Flier Miles. If this pairing led to a bug, we'd miss the bug if we just ignored the car portion of the generated test case, so it's much better to use constraints to eliminate having Type of Car as Luxury when Reserve a Car is No.
We have options for how to constrain this, but let's suppose we create the following 2 uni-directional married pairs:
When Type of Car = Luxury then Reserve a Car = Yes
When Type of Car = Economy then Reserve a Car = Yes
We've taken both our values for Type of Car and married them to Reserve a Car as Yes. Hexawise is still duty-bound to pair Reserve a Car as No with things like Destination as USA and Payment Method as Credit Card. For these test cases there won't be a valid value for Type of Car, so it will get "no possible value". This leads us to our first option for dealing with no possible values.
Option 1: Do nothing! There really is no possible value in that case, and you're OK with it.
If we use option 1, the "no possible value" is intentional. Option 1 is the simplest, but not always our best option. Not every "no possible value" is intentional, many in fact are unintentional, and are a result of inconsistent or missing constraint logic. A "no possible value" therefore tends to be a "quality smell" in a test plan. Meaning... you're not sure something is rotten when you see it, but it sure smells like something might be rotten. So that brings us to another option for handling intentional no possible values.
Option 2: Introduce a "Not Applicable" value.
We can add a third value to Type of Car.
Type of Car: Luxury, Economy, N/A
Now, whenever Reserve a Car is No there will be just 1 value left for Hexawise for Type of Car which is N/A so all those cases of "no possible value" will become "N/A". Problem fixed? Almost, but not quite! Hexawise is now duty-bound to pair Type of Car as N/A with Reserve a Car as Yes. To avoid this new nonsense, we add an invalid pair:
When Reserver a Car = Yes then Type of Car cannot = N/A
Option 1 and option 2 work when you discover the source of the "no possible value" is intentional. But what about when you discover it's not intentional. In that case, the "quality smell" has led us to something that truly is rotten!
Let's suppose we have Class as Business only on international, not domestic flights. Easy enough. Let's add an invalid pair to reflect this business rule.
When Destination = USA then Class cannot = Business
Let's also suppose that an Upgrade Coupon can only be used for Business class, not Economy or First Class. Also easy. Let's add a uni-directional married pair for this:
When Payment Method = Upgrade Coupon then Class = Business
Have you spotted the trouble yet? Hexawise is duty-bound to pair Destination as USA with Payment Method as Upgrade Coupon, since their could be a bug caused by that pairing, and if there is, you want to be sure to find it. In the test case that has this pairing, Hexawise is going to have "no possible value" for Class!
Option 3: Correct your constraint logic.
In this case, our constraint logic is incomplete. We need an invalid pair:
When Destination = USA then Payment Method cannot = Upgrade Coupon
This relieves Hexawise of its duty to pair Destination as USA with Payment Method as Upgrade Coupon and eliminates the "no possible value".Mysterious "No Possible Value"
For cases of an unitentional "no possible value" where you need to use option 3 to correct an inconsistency in your constraint logic, it's not always clear where the inconsistency is. In fact, it can be downright mysterious. The more constrained your plan is, the harder it can be to find the root cause.
My best advice for tracking down the cause of a "no possible value" in complicated cases is to stay patient and stick with it. Practice makes you better at it. Here are some additional tips:
- Look at each test case with "no possible values" in isolation, don't try to analyze more than 1 at once
- Start with the test case with the fewest number of "no possible values" and then fix the issues your analysis turns up, then regenerate your tests and repeat, until you have none left
- You need pencil and paper! Write out the test case that you're analyzing on paper, then do the analysis from the "Define Inputs" page where it's easiest to see all the possible values for each parameter
- Take advantage of the hover highlighting of applicable value pairs in the Define Inputs screen. Collapse every section in the left panel except the Paired Values (constraints) so you can see as many as value pairings at one time as possible
- If you get completely stuck, reach out to a more experienced colleague or ask Hexawise for help
Doing this analysis can be tricky, so having Hexawise do the analysis for you instead is a great idea. We'd like to have a tooltip with an explanation for the no possible value. Since it can be tricky for us humans to determine why a particular no possible value case exists in complicated cases, the algorithm to do the same is also tricky to get right, but we're working toward having a tooltip to explain the cause of the "no possible value", and are going to be very excited when this feature is ready. We might accidentally create a self-aware AI that enslaves the humans in the process though. If we do, don't say we didn't warn you.
In addition to an automated explanation of where the "no possible value" came from, we also know that prevention is better than a cure, so we're working to identify these cases as soon as the constraints are entered so we can prompt you in the moment to correct the issue. We already do this for some of the simpler causes of "no possible value", you may have been prompted by Hexawise already. We're working on Hexawise being able to detect more complicated causes so we can prevent more of these cases early.
In the end, always keep in mind that every "no possible value" is simply a conflict between a parameter value pairing Hexawise is duty-bound to provide to ensure you get 100% coverage, and the constraints you've applied to the plan in the form of married pairs and invalid pairs. With that in mind, have fun "no possible value" hunting.