Re: Should i change the status of a bug if i really think it is a bug

[Marcus]

Am 11/20/2015 05:45 PM, schrieb Dolores Zurdo Consuegra:


[...]

They say that they could replicate the bug, but it is still like
unconfirmed.


maybe none of them have thought of changing the status or they simply 
have not the permissions.



So my question is:
Should the status of this bug be as confirmed or I'm changing the bug's
status too fast?


No, I think is this case it's OK to set the status to CONFIRMED.

Latest when you test this and can see the issue also, then you should 
change the status.


The 3 people have tested this with 4.1.1 and all comments are quiet 
recent - at least not years old.



I'm asking this because i don't want to start to declarer bug too fast, in
case i'm doing it wrong.


Don't be affraid to make mistakes. Sooner or later this may happen. In 
the best case someone (maybe the issue reporter himself) will point you 
to that and then you can revert your action - or write another comment 
with correcting your last comment.


> If it is so, please tell me, so i could review and

change all the things that i have done so far. :-)


That's OK. In general, look and test carefully and act as best as you 
can. :-)


I hope this was helpful.

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Should i change the status of a bug if i really think it is a bug

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Dolores,

Thanks for wanting to be careful about confirming reported defects.  It is all 
about developing your judgment.  Don't be too worried.  If you are not 
confident about something, see if you can make tests that provide clear-cut 
confirmation.  

EXAMPLE

Concluding that #126609 is a duplicate of #125894 is a judgment call.  It seems 
all right.

#125894 comments are not completely systematic.  I can understand why it is not 
marked confirmed.  It may also be that some of the commenters do not have the 
karma to make that change, or it is left for any other reason.  The commenters 
may also be describing different cases.

It *appears* that choice of the insertion point is a factor, as is the kind of 
insertion being made.  That is, what is the insertion "tied to. (page, 
paragraph, character and paragraph settings about page splitting may be a 
factor)"

This will take more analysis, because there appear to be so many cases.  This 
is complicated farther by interoperability considerations with Microsoft Word 
formats.  

My thinking is that this needs to be broken down better.  For example, there is 
what happens "natively" in Writer, when a document is created and saved as an 
ODT, closed, and then used to launch Writer again.  

How well does the Writer -> .odt -> Writer case work?  When does the overlap 
happen and when does it not?  Is there a difference when opened in LibreOffice 
Writer instead of OpenOffice Writer?  Is there a difference when the .odt is 
opened or produced in a current version of Microsoft Word (2013 or 2016) 
relying on its ODF support?  (Windows Wordpad also accepts/produces simple .doc 
and .odt documents.  Another place that might reveal more about this.)

For the Microsoft Word cases there are Word -> .doc -> Writer, and Writer -> 
.doc -> Word also.  Also Word -> .docx -> Writer (but not the reverse).  The 
problems could be in the conversions, depending on what the Writer -> Writer 
case reveals.

What to do?

You might want to identify a clearly reproducible case and provide an account 
from which anyone can reproduce the situation, starting with the simplest 
interoperability case.

Next steps are based on what your analysis reveals.  There are many moving 
parts.  That's not so bad, if the reproducible case is very clear and not 
confused with any other possible case.  There might be different bugs involved 
[;<), although the symptoms appear the same at the level of reporting so far.

At some point, especially for .docx and .odt, it may be necessary to examine 
the files themselves using Zip and XML viewers/editors, to see if there is some 
discrepancy that can be seen in the files themselves.  The .odt file may be the 
most revealing.

If you determine that there is more than one distinct situation, it might then 
be time to split the incident report into multiple ones.

Good luck.  Don't worry too much.   Anything you accomplish is a gift to the 
project.  And if you work a case analysis, similar to what I have given, that 
itself will be a reusable analysis for others to employ.

Keep asking questions.

 - Dennis











> -Original Message-
> From: Dolores Zurdo Consuegra [mailto:dolores.zurdo.consue...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 08:45
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Should i change the status of a bug if i really think it is a
> bug
[ ... ]
> But the last bug i found it (Issue 126609
> ), i think it was
> duplicated from *Issue 125894
> *
> In this last bug, we can see different users for example:
> 
> 
>- oyekani...@yahoo.com
>- Prakrut Bhatt 
> 
> They say that they could replicate the bug, but it is still like
> unconfirmed.
> 
> So my question is:
> Should the status of this bug be as confirmed or I'm changing the bug's
> status too fast?
> 
> I'm asking this because i don't want to start to declarer bug too fast,
> in
> case i'm doing it wrong. If it is so, please tell me, so i could review
> and
> change all the things that i have done so far. :-)
> 
> Thank you very much,


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org