Mark, you can create a new ticket for testing. To make it easier you could simply choose More Actions -> Clone and have a summary preceded with [TEST]. Such tickets should be linked as well.
The problem with changing an assignee is that one need to look through ticket logs to figure out who wrote the code. -Rafal On 3 February 2012 18:48, Darius Jazayeri <[email protected]> wrote: > +0.25. Typically we don't have separate testers, so the state won't get > used much. But in situations where we do have a separate testing team, it > seems worth having. > > That said, when I've led a sprint where I want tickets to get out of the > "needs review" box, but they shouldn't be Approved/Closed yet, I have > labeled them as "passed-initial-review" (or something like that) and I > configured the widgets on the dashboard to show "passed-initial-review" as > done-for-purposes-of-the-sprint. (In this case I think it waiting for a > second person to finish code review, after the first person had already > approved the review.) > > -Darius > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Wyclif Luyima <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for that state, because tickets end up getting left in another state >> when actually we are waiting for the feature/bug to get tested. >> >> Wyclif >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Mark Goodrich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> How would people feel about added an “Awaiting Vertification Testing” >>> state to JIRA.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> This is an awkward name, but I’m sure someone besides me could come up >>> with a better one… :)**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> This state would fall between “Code-Review (Post-Commited)” and “Closed” >>> state.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> There are two (similar) use cases here:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> **1) **After code has been committed and reviewed, it is set to >>> the Testing state for the original reporter to verify that it is fixed** >>> ** >>> >>> **2) **After code has been committed and reviewed, it is set to >>> the Testing state and assigned to a tester for verification**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> This has come up because we’ve got a great volunteer tester here in the >>> office, and I’ve been asking him to test and verify many of the >>> features/bugs added/fixed during the HFE sprint.. but this has ended up >>> with a lot of tickets remaining in the “Code Review” state when all that is >>> required is final testing.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Also, I don’t know how “Assigned To” works… if multiple people are >>> assigned to a ticket thorough it’s life, is this tracked (and searchable)? >>> If I assign all the tickets to our tester at the end of the workflow, is it >>> going to look like he actually took on all the tickets?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Thanks,**** >>> >>> Mark**** >>> >>> **** >>> ------------------------------ >>> Click here to >>> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >>> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Click here to >> unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from >> OpenMRS Developers' mailing list >> > > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
