Siemens Polarion® ensures that only approved and valid test cases are selected and executed in test runs, blocking unapproved ones.
The approved-only execution preserves process quality, ensures traceability, avoids errors, reduces risk and supports compliance.
A test run loads Active test cases from a LiveDoc; when one becomes Draft, it is blocked, or excluded automatically at runtime.
Has our video on the Polarion® Advent Calendar 2025 piqued your interest? Don’t miss out — fill out the form below with your contact details to download our exclusive documentation including Script (PDF) for free.
The Read-only Fields feature for LiveDocs can strengthen your data integrity, transparency, customization control and compliance fulfillment – we can help you leverage its full potential for your project.
Only approved test cases run, reducing defective steps and preventing unstable or inconsistent validation outcomes.
Execution stays aligned with controlled review states, supporting audit-ready documentation and regulatory demands.
Clear links from executed tests to reviewed items ensure reliable evidence and prevent confusion caused by draft versions.
Test runs remain stable, as invalid changes are blocked, preserving predictable results and protecting project integrity.
Teams avoid retesting due to unapproved edits, saving time and reducing costly delays caused by invalid test executions.
Unreviewed content cannot be executed, minimizing human error, avoiding data loss, and ensuring a safe validation path.
In regulated industries such as aerospace, automotive or defense, precise data and clear processes are essential. The Read-only Fields function for LiveDocs in Siemens Polarion® helps to ensure these standards.
Revolution instead of evolution: transforming the energy sector with advanced consulting and future-proof ALM approaches.
Financial solutions with foresight: secure sustainable approaches for dynamic financial markets with our advice.
Increase efficiency in the public sector with innovative approaches and processes for robust and future-oriented solutions.
Download our whitepaper Toolchain-Pflege in der Praxis: Die toolzentrierte Checkliste für Ihre Software-Entwicklung (in German) and use proven approachs to create a organization based on tool-centric optimization.
Discover our comprehensive services that can transform your product development process. Our experts offer in-depth consulting and customized solutions for seamless Application Lifecycle Management.
As a Siemens Polarion® partner, we offer you forward-looking ALM expertise for optimal approaches and better project results.
Through our certified PTC partnership, we provide you with pioneering know-how from the ALM software Codebeamer®.
Thanks to our many years of project experience, you benefit from proven industry knowledge and future-oriented ALM solutions.
Do you have individual questions about the Read-only Fields feature for LiveDocs? Our experts are ready to assist you. Take the first step towards a complexity-mastering future and request a non-binding consultation now.
In our blog you will regularly find valuable tips, current trends and inspiring ideas that will make your development projects more efficient, increase the productivity of your team and ensure your business success.
Well-founded answers to frequently asked questions about the Siemens Polarion® future Read-only Fields. Find out in the following lines how you can advance your development project with us and achieve optimum results.
Unapproved test cases represent content that has not yet passed through the organization’s review and validation flow. Executing such cases introduces risks: test coverage might be incomplete, wording may still be ambiguous, or requirements may not be reflected correctly. When teams execute unapproved content, test results become unreliable and may later require rework, retesting or even invalidation during audits. Ensuring that only approved cases run protects project quality, stakeholder trust and compliance.
Each test case holds a status that reflects its maturity and review progress. Polarion® allows organizations to define approval states such as Active, Approved or Released, and work-in-progress states like Draft or Rework. Teams can establish a process where only certain states are considered valid for execution. This gives test managers visibility into readiness and provides a clear signal to engineers, auditors and reviewers regarding whether a test case may be executed within a controlled environment.
When a test case transitions from an approved state to something like Draft or Rework, it indicates that its content is being re-evaluated or rebuilt. At this moment, the test definition is no longer guaranteed to reflect previous assumptions. Running it would compromise both test quality and result interpretation. To protect project integrity, such test cases should be blocked from execution or clearly flagged as unready. This prevents inconsistent outcomes and avoids confusing validation results or audit trail issues.
Yes. Polarion® allows teams to ensure that only test cases in approved states are selected into a test run. By using well-defined filtering mechanisms or templates based on status, test runs can be automatically populated with only validated content. This eliminates manual sorting, reduces human errors, and creates reliable, repeatable executions. When teams enforce this principle consistently, it also strengthens quality assurance because testers can always rely on the correctness and stability of the test cases they execute.
Status-driven execution ensures that what testers run has passed the necessary review gates. Instead of relying on individual judgment or assumptions, the process enforces shared governance. Every approval checkpoint verifies that the test case meets its design intent, aligns with the underlying requirements, and correctly reflects expected system behavior. This prevents subtle mistakes, uncontrolled changes and undocumented modifications that could invalidate results, undermine traceability, or lead to failed audits in regulated environments.
A previously approved test case can return to an unapproved state when requirements evolve, design changes emerge, or a defect reveals inconsistencies in the original scenario. Reviewers may also discover unclear descriptions, incorrect steps or missing acceptance criteria. In such cases, the test case must be revised and re-evaluated. This transition is not a failure; it is a healthy quality assurance mechanism. It signals that validation must pause until accuracy and alignment with functional expectations are restored.
Consistency comes from clearly defined approval cycles, status transitions and shared responsibilities. Teams typically use workflows requiring peer review, stakeholder sign-off and traceability to requirements. When content changes, a test case should return to a working state, allowing engineers to safely improve its logic. After refinements, it can be re-approved to reenter the execution pipeline. This model maintains high transparency, reduces confusion between versions and ensures that only one authoritative definition is executed.
Yes. Traceability is preserved when executed tests correspond to clear, approved versions of test cases. If unapproved changes were executed, links back to requirements or defect records could become invalid, generating results that can no longer be interpreted confidently. By restricting execution to validated states, each execution cycle reflects a well-defined baseline. This means engineers, project leads and auditors can confidently track how tests support requirements and whether results represent real system behavior.
Mixing both types dilutes confidence in the results. Approved test cases may provide reliable outcomes, while unapproved ones introduce uncertainty. If issues appear, it becomes unclear whether they stem from system defects or flawed test definitions. Teams then need to re-execute tests or manually separate results. This wastes time, increases costs and reduces efficiency. More critically, mixed runs undermine documentation quality and can lead to non-compliance in regulated industries where validation rigor is mandatory.
Compliance frameworks require auditable, controlled validation procedures. Executing only approved test cases ensures that test evidence reflects content that has passed formal review. It protects organizations from undocumented deviations, ensures a consistent validation baseline, and aligns with standards such as automotive SPICE, aerospace guidelines or medical regulations. This approach demonstrates diligence, reduces regulatory risk and creates a defensible audit trail. In complex software environments, such discipline is essential rather than optional.
