On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 11:09 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > We agreed that following discussions needs to be started: > - Feature field / AP Jari: Start discussion with Product Management about > usage of the feature field. First step is to create QA Proposal for the > feature usage discuss it with PM and the discuss on meego-qa mailing list. > Approval in MeeGo QA Weekly meeting. NOTE: From QA perspective it would be > good to link it to architecture > - Requirement / AP Jari: Verify from QA-Tools lead Ville Ilvonen which > field is used in qa-reports.meego.com for linking test case to requirements > in Featurezilla > - Domain field usage / AP Jari: Agree this with Product Management and > discuss on qa-mailing list. Approval from QA Weekly meeting. > - Domain field usage should follow Eric's definition: > http://meego.com/developers/meego-architecture/meego-architecture-domain-view > - On UX side: Domains == "application" and Component == [application name]
As mentioned in today's QA meeting, Jari and I have commented something regarding these on bug 12965 (mainly about the usage of "requirement" and "feature" attributes). To summarize, to me it seems that there are no clear decisions available yet on the discussion items mentioned above. Please let me know if there are. Otherwise I hope we could agree on these soon in order to communicate and clarify the practices, and update our QA tools where needed. The current situation with "requirement" attribute is that it is not used in our context meaning tools such as Testplanner, QA Reports, testplans.meego.com etc (correct me if I'm wrong). Linking a test case to featurezilla ID has been done by entering featurezilla ID to "feature" field although it has not been used widely by testing teams. Based on this ID number, the name (and some other attributes) of the featurezilla item can be fetched automatically. I'd personally prefer this current practice over using "requirement" for featurezilla ID AND "feature" for feature name if that means that a test engineer / community member doing the test planning should provide the feature name. In my opinion, test engineer / community member who wants to create test cases for certain featurezilla items should not need to provide some meta data about the features but focus on actual test planning. We already have too many attributes to be entered in test plans, which makes test plan writing rather laborious and not very interesting for community members. Based on my previous experiences, it is very difficult to get everyone to use exactly right feature names etc so I'd prefer a solution where this kind of data would be linked automatically to featurezilla items. Although, I assume that this is not yet possible e.g. for domain names (?). That's just my two cents. The main thing in my opinion is to get some clear decision on these and let's then communicate them more clearly. Br, Arto _______________________________________________ MeeGo-qa mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa
