On 19.3.2015 12:33, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 03/19/2015 11:45 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> On 19.3.2015 10:11, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>> On 03/19/2015 09:25 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I do not much to add to the process itself. After first reading it seems
>>>> pretty heavyweight but let's try it, it can be refined at any time :-)
>>> Right, but then we would need to migrate the data about test completion and 
>>> so
>>> on - which is more work. So it is much better to define some working now, 
>>> than
>>> to change it couple months later.
>>> We were already trying to invent something as much lightweight as possible,
>>> this was the minimum new fields we come for to be able to track the test
>>> coverage and plans. If you have another proposal how to track it better, I
>>> would love to hear it, really :-)
>> Sure. For me the main question is when *designing of tests* should start and
>> how it is synchronized with feature design. Is it done in parallel? Or
>> sequentially? When the feedback from test designers flows back? Isn't it too 
>> late?
>> Let's discuss ticket workflow like this:
>> new -> design functionality&tests -> write code&tests -> test run -> closed
>> IMHO we should have tests *designed* before we start to implement the final
>> version of the functionality. It may be too late to find out that interface
>> design is flawed (e.g. from user's point of view) when the feature is fully
>> implemented and test phase is reached.
>> Designing/writing tests early could discover things like poor interface 
>> design
>> sooner, when it is still easy to change interfaces. Currently we have 
>> 'design'
>> reviews before the implementation starts but actually designing tests at the
>> same time would attract more eyes/brains to the feature design phase. We may
>> call it 'first usability review' if we wish :-)
>> In my mind, test designers should be first feature users (even virtually) so
>> the early feedback is crucial.
>> Note that this approach does not preclude experimental/quick&dirty 
>> prototyping
>> as part of the design phase but it has to be clear that prototype might (and
>> should!) be thrown away if the first idea wasn't the best one.
> Yes! This is exactly why this QE team was created - to be able to test as 
> early
> as possible, review designs with QE eyes as early as possible.

Great, in that case we can ignore the next section completely (it was meant as

>> If this is too radical:

>> Then there is the question if we actually need to separate field for QE state
>> and Test case field. Test case could behave in the same way as Bugzilla link
>> field:
>> - empty field - undecided
>> - 0 (or string "not necessary" or something) - test case is deemed 
>> unnecessary
>> - non-zero link - apparently, a test case exists
>> It would be more consistent with what we have for Bugzilla links.
> The metadata we come up should be able to supply at least following queries:
> - which tickets (RFEs/bugs) are covered with tests in a specific milestone,
> what are the test cases
> - who, from QE team, is working on which tickets
> - list of tickets where we want the tests and which are for grabs by QE 
> engineer
> I am not sure if this can be covered just with the extra QE phase and Test 
> Case
> link.

Okay, it might be easier with more explicit fields as proposed.

Petr^2 Spacek

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to