On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Nigel Daley wrote:
I propose that before we commit issues marked as "New Feature",
they must have:
1. a design doc attachment
2. a test plan attachment
(Templates to be provided for both)
Clarifying test expectations is a good idea in principle. I gather
that what you're after in (1) is an enumeration of new functionality
Yes, how the new feature interacts within the system and how to
interact with it from outside the system (if applicable).
and in (2) corresponding tests. That sounds reasonable for large
new features, but might be overkill for small features, no?
I agree with Arun: "+1 with the expectation that common sense will
prevail for smaller features". I'll come up with some examples.
I'd like to see the templates and some examples. Documents would
preferably be in some open format, like HTML or plain text.
Ya, I'll work on these next if we have agreement in principle.
Is there an assumption that, before the patch is committed, that the
tests in the plan will be implemented and passed?
Yes, for the automatable tests.
Are these to be automated tests, with the goal that we'll end up
with automated regression tests for all features?
I think all tests should be enumerated in the test plan (positive and
negative functional, system, scale, performance, etc) with the
expectation that the positive and negative functional tests will be
automated with JUnit.
Nige
