The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VRe For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 18:58
|
Posts: 53 |
Thanked: 49 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#42
|
I wrote the process on the developer list in 1st of November.. one of the issues was a missing manual QA/testing checklist and that everyone wounldn't need to test everything. Automated testing is then a bonus on top of this (and remove atleast #1 and #6). As the testing interface is still the same, there is a queue, it is not clear who has tested what - I made one text based checklist:
...
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 19:15
|
|
Posts: 1,559 |
Thanked: 1,786 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Boston
|
#43
|
I added the list to the end of http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_checklist - maybe I'll be then actually used..
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 19:26
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#44
|
It's a lot more time-consuming to edit the wiki, but i hacked most of that into the http://wiki.maemo.org/Help_testing_software page. I was going to just merge everything into extras-testing, but some of the material seemed a bit verbose and trivial for that page. If someone else can find a good way to consolidate everything into extras-testing and redirect the help-testing-software page to it, that would be great. Just remember that we need a concise but simple description of how to test. The extras-testing page is getting rather long, so the best bet might be to split it into one page describing the nature of the repo and how to add it, and put everything else into the qa checklist page it links to.
So much to do, so little time. Anyway, fresh pair of eyes now that i distilled that new info into the wiki would be good. We really do need a better/more complete testing guide.
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 19:26
|
|
Posts: 327 |
Thanked: 249 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Λεμεσιανός, ρε!
|
#45
|
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 22:49
|
Posts: 121 |
Thanked: 75 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#46
|
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 23:09
|
Posts: 287 |
Thanked: 127 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Sweden
|
#47
|
Hmm... a list of what the Automated testing covers will be good for n00bs such as myself, I agree
The Following User Says Thank You to floffe For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 23:29
|
|
Posts: 288 |
Thanked: 113 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Germany
|
#48
|
![]() |
2009-12-17
, 23:34
|
|
Posts: 387 |
Thanked: 566 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Dublin
|
#49
|
![]() |
2009-12-18
, 03:13
|
|
Posts: 23 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#50
|
The Following User Says Thank You to hypoxic For This Useful Post: | ||
Testing checklist:
1. [ ] Bug database exist.
2. [ ] Licensing ok.
3. [ ] Working provided features.
4. [ ] No missing announced features.
5. [ ] Optification ok.
6. [ ] No performance problems.
7. [ ] No power management issues.
8. [ ] No illegal/dubious content.
9. [ ] No known security risks.
* Copy&paste this to the comment box.
* Put [x] for those tests you have done, elaborate on separate row if the test is FAIL.
* Vote up if there were no FAILs, if there was even one FAIL vote down.
* UI usability issues cannot be used as reason for vote down.
* Always test functionality - that is, run the program and try if it works as it should.
imaginary example:
1. [x] Bug database exist.
2. [ ] Licensing ok.
3. [x] Working provided features.
FAIL: There is choice between tabs and spaces as separators but spaces are always used (see bug: http://url/123).
FAIL: When exporting file the program crashes (see bug: http://url/456)
4. [ ] No missing announced features.
5. [x] Optification ok.
FAIL: the package uses 1512kb from root.
6. [ ] No performance problems.
7. [ ] No power management issues.
8. [ ] No illegal/dubious content.
9. [ ] No known security risks.
Last edited by VRe; 2009-12-17 at 19:12.