db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Usage of "Test" component in JIRA
Date Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:02:28 GMT
Hi Dag,

Thanks for doing all this work. Some comments below...

Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
> Dag.Wanvik@Sun.COM (Dag H. Wanvik) writes:
>> This left many issues without component. I have added components for
>> open issues..
> I have added component "Test" (as an a priori component) for those
> issues which had no other component when the "Regression Test Failure"
> was removed. But this started me thinking and I have a question on the
> recommended usage of the "Test" component. 
> Normally, when we fix a Derby bug, we add a new test case to the
> regression tests. This means that a patch for an issue will touch
> both, say, the "Store" component and the "Test" component.
> I don't think we have had a clear practice on whether to mark such
> issues with the additional "Test" component or not. Since the focus of
> the issue would be the bug or modification in Derby itself, the "Test"
> component is often not given. Do we want to tighten this up and
> recommend to use the "Test" component in addition if the test code is
> at all modified by the patch? Or would it be better to reserve the
> "Test" component usage for cases where the focus is test or test
> infrastructure?
I don't have any experience with the new scheme so my advice won't be 
grounded in reality. Off the top of my head, it seems that this 
component is going to start out flagging the following issues:

1) JIRAs whose Issue Type used to be "Test"

2) JIRAs whose Component used to be "Regression Test Failure"

I suspect that these are mostly issues whose primary focus is test code, 
not product code. If we want to broaden the meaning of the new "Test" 
Component, I would want to think about the following questions:

A) Will this give rise to some new, useful JIRA queries?

B) Will this make other JIRA queries less useful or harder to write?

> Thanks,
> Dag

View raw message