Hi,

Thanks for opening this discussion.
See my comments down there having Jari: at the beginning.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Arto Sinnelä
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.

Jari: You are expecting decision by whom? Vatula as head of QA or shall we have 
consensus as resolution this email thread?
Surely having this big picture known and communicated helps tooling and testing 
to have common goal to aim.

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.

Jari: For me the intent for fields (from meego.com QA point of view) might be 
following:
- Feature - text field describing the functionality tested. For this I would 
like to take one example from 
http://meego.com/developers/meego-architecture/meego-architecture-domain-view  
where "Multimedia domain provides audio and video playback, streaming, and 
imaging functionality to the system.". I suppose we need to include Product 
Management and Architecture to these discussions - of course one possibility is 
to have "Master" features in bugzilla to include functionality items and then 
only IDs can be used here and requirement field might come obsolete. I'm not 
aiming to have only one list to be used by whole community - I would like us in 
meego.com QA to have one common one in order to be able tell what works and 
what does not with terminology that could be understood by non-technical people 
too. Other groups then have possibility to define other lists with maybe finer 
details.
- Requirement - field to have feature or bug ID's as comma separated list. This 
enables the linkage between tests and bugs.meego.com items.
- Component - I would like this to be used by Projects more than by Meego.com 
QA. Component here shall be the ones in bugzilla (and architecture). 
Auto-population from bugzilla might be good idea here (drop box populated or 
component selected according req or ...).
- Domain - Having this might be handy when we start to have a lot of features 
or components tested with a one test set. It can be use for grouping giving 
"managerial" view. Domains are defined in architecture, but unfortunately today 
we do not have these in our tooling (e.g. bugzilla). Or do we?
So Arto - Was this kind of data in your mind (to be communicated with the 
decision)?
And for community member I would say that these are not mandatory ... but 
having something on these field might help to tell the story with test session 
report.

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
(?).

Jari: I totally agree with you on auto-population as much as possible. And I'm 
not seeking for one and only list for Feature names for everybody, maybe just 
for Meego.com QA in order to tell what works and what does not similar way for 
all the verticals. Then we can maybe start to compare functionality statuses 
between verticals (e.g. Core OS vs. Handset). 

Br, Jari
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-qa mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa

Reply via email to