Current tests check that Auto Assign respects leave and configured hour and rest rules, uses work patterns, repeats the same assignment result for unchanged input, and keeps a staffing gap visible when no suitable person can cover it.
1. Leave keeps an employee off the shift
We tested one employee, one 09:00–17:00 shift, and approved leave covering that date. Auto Assign left the shift open and showed leave as the reason.
For a manager, that means an employee who is away does not silently appear on a generated schedule.
2. An overnight shift counts toward weekly hours
The test uses a 22:00–06:00 shift with a 30-minute break. An employee with 7.5 hours available can take it; an employee capped at 7 hours cannot, and the test reports the hour limit.
3. Repeating the same run does not reshuffle the schedule
The test runs Auto Assign twice with the same employee, shift, and scheduling input, then checks that the assignments match.
This guarantee is limited to repeated runs with unchanged test input. It does not promise the same result after software, settings, or schedule data change.
4. A repeating work pattern sets work and rest days
A test employee follows a repeating two-days-on, two-days-off pattern. The employee's start date places them in the cycle, and Auto Assign checks that position when considering a shift.
5. Balancing can move a shift when another employee can take it
In one test, Auto Assign moves a shift from an employee who is over their weekly limit to a colleague who can take it, keeping the shift covered. A separate test checks that when no valid replacement exists, the schedule shows the resulting shortage rather than assigning someone who breaks the limit.
6. A staffing gap is shown when a hard rule prevents assignment
Current tests check weekly-hour limits, minimum rest between shifts, and minimum weekly rest. When a hard setting makes an assignment invalid, Auto Assign leaves the place open and records why.
The tests also check that location minimums do not reduce a shift's total headcount and that an existing manager-protected assignment is not silently changed to hide a shortage.
A larger internal test: 200 employees across two months
One automated test uses 200 fictional employees, 60 days, and 180 shifts. It checks that the scheduler fills that specific setup without inventing coverage warnings.
This is one controlled software test, not an independent performance benchmark, customer outcome, or guarantee for another team's schedule.
The team, shifts, and dates are test data. Results from this case should not be read as a customer story or a promise of full coverage for every schedule.
What these tests can—and cannot—tell you
A passing test shows that a particular behavior worked with the stated inputs. It does not establish legal compliance, prove time or cost savings, or guarantee coverage for every organization.
We publish these cases to show what was tested, not to turn a software test into a customer result.
Continue exploring