<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Sridhar Dhanapalan <<a href="mailto:sridhar@laptop.org.au">sridhar@laptop.org.au</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="im">On 18 February 2012 21:04, Tabitha Roder <<a href="mailto:tabitha@tabitha.net.nz">tabitha@tabitha.net.nz</a>> wrote: > On the topic of tracking testing, we have looked at a number of options here > in NZ and I think Australia also looked at a number of options. </div>We've recently hired a software test engineer and are developing a workflow for testing. We're also receiving advice from experienced enterprise testers (who are sympathetic to open source). </blockquote><div> Perhaps we should schedule a meeting/introductions to coordinate? </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> The main piece of advice I'm getting is that we need a good test case management system that allows for linking with defects. The links need to be able to be tracked, searched and sorted. This lets us quickly understand the relationships between the tests and defects, and also identify which defects are more disruptive. </blockquote><div> In general the OLPC situation is a lot like the Fedora situation. The dedicated, often full-time testers may prefer full-featured test case management systems, while the rest of the community tends to not see why one is required. In my case I've been told to use a spreadsheet. Even at the Wiki level test cases are often seen as excess. It supposedly was proposed to Fedora's steering committee (FESCo) that all packages should be submitted by packagers with information that could be used to build test cases. But this became only optional. Similarly, there is a "proven tester" status in Fedora for testers who read and agreed to basic guidelines. But that status was recently stripped of any meaning because too few testers in general were testing packages, and requiring proven tester feedback for critical-path updates was leading to significant delays. In regards to Nitrate, there is a bit of history within Red Hat which explains why Fedora is considering that route [1]. Red Hat used to use Testopia, but when Fedora legal looked at it they did not like the licensing of one of its Javascript libraries. This led to a new TCMS called Nitrate being written which could use the Testopia database schema. It's worth noting they thought of us when developing the system [2]. Ideally Fedora and OLPC-A/-F/-AU should settle on sharing or using similar enough infrastructure that we avoid significant duplication of work. At least within the various OLPC groups we all are more or less testing the same thing. [1] <a href="http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-January/096502.html" target="_blank">http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-January/096502.html</a> ; the thread itself starts at <a href="http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-January/096441.html" target="_blank">http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-January/096441.html</a> [2] <a href="https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/browser/design/wireframes/add_case_new_page1.jpg" target="_blank">https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/browser/design/wireframes/add_case_new_page1.jpg</a> & a few other pictures </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Sridhar _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> </blockquote></div>