W dniu 18.10.2012 16:28, Abner Silva pisze:
Hello,
Sorry for my delay. I have been busy with other things.
Hey Abner, good to see you here again!
It's good to see people discussing it. I'm glad.
Here are some comments about this initial spec:
[Terminologies]
As a section says, it's not going to change the
test/testcase/testrun/testresult terminology for now. It would be good
to have each of these terminologies well explained somewhere. It might
be crystal clear to you guys, but for other people it might be confusing
when attending to the Linaro Connect session, since these same
terminologies are commonly used to represent other QA artifacts.
They are somewhat explained in the glossary section of
linaro-dashboard-bundle python library:
http://linaro-dashboard-bundle.readthedocs.org/en/latest/glossary.html
I'd gladly accept patches to that library to reword / improve it [edit:
I cannot accept patches there anymore but I'm sure we can correct that]
[Test case concept]
The first thing that passed through my head when I started thinking
about TC (sorry, I don't know what to call it considering LAVA naming)
inside LAVA, was that it would be a different Object/artifact/file, and
not really represented by the test definition concept/file LAVA already
have nowadays.
Is that what you guys are planning to do? To consider the test def that
we have today as the TC entity? If yes, I probably have some questions
about it.
I think that a test definition (currently) merely specifies test (suite)
and it can have many test cases as an effect of running. Having said
that I'd like to see a test definition that clearly states all of the
test cases it can produce, with sensible description/meta data for each
of them.
I guess it depends on the number of test cases, behemoths such as LTP
with test cases in the thousands are probably going to not offer
per-test case meta-data just yet.
Still, whatever we choose to do, initially I would recommend a discovery
phase where we enumerate all the things that we have encountered and
classified. As we gather visibility on that data we can improve the
definitions of our terminology. In the longer term I would like to see
common vocabulary that spans "development camps" so that when LAVA
developers talk to Checkbox developers and Phoronix developers (for
example) there are no misunderstandings.
Thanks
ZK
--
Zygmunt Krynicki
s/Linaro Validation Team/Canonical Certification Team/
s/Validation/Android/
_______________________________________________
linaro-validation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
