incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From xia zhao <lilyzh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Date Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:30:07 GMT
2011/12/19, Andor E <eymux2009@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
> as promised, I have asked for permission to release our test cases
> under a CC license. The idea was received very well and I got the
> official permission.
Really good news! Thanks for your sharing!

I will have a look at the test database next to
> find out, which formats I can use to release the test cases.
> I will make an announcement, when I have a release ready.
> Any input from your side?

If possible, XML formart is prefered.

> Greetings
>
> Andor Ertsey
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Andor E <eymux2009@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'll ask tomorrow at our regular meeting with the project lead.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:41 AM, xia zhao <lilyzhao8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2011/12/8, Andor E <eymux2009@googlemail.com>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I almost missed your mail. When I got no response to my offer, I
>>>> thought there was no interest.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I was catched by some urgent things those days after I post the
>>> AOO 3.4 test plan topic to community and missed your mail..
>>>
>>>> Our testers use TestLink (http://www.teamst.org/), so the test cases
>>>> currently live inside that. From the manual it seems, that one can
>>>> only export to XML. Which format would you prefer?
>>> XML format sounds fine for me.
>>>
>>>> Other than that, I still need to ask for permission to share the test
>>>> cases. It would help, if I could demonstrate serious interest by the
>>>> community to put the tests to good use.
>>> Yes, now we have had several QA vulunteers have strong passion to
>>> contribute their effort to AOO 3.4 and further AOO testing. One big
>>> challenge for us is the most test assets, especially manual test
>>> cases, are not migrated from old OO site to Apache OO site. This will
>>> bring high risk to regression testing and to the AOO quality
>>> assurance. Thanks advance if your team can share it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greetings
>>>>
>>>> Andor Ertsey
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:54 AM, xia zhao <lilyzhao8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Andor,
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be much appreciated if you can share it with free license. And
>>>>> we
>>>>> can see if some volunters can contribute to the translation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope your response. Thanks.
>>>>> 2011/11/24 Andor E <eymux2009@googlemail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> for our project we have a sizeable amount of manual test cases for
>>>>>> OpenOffice.org (created by professional test engineers). These are
>>>>>> used for internal and user tests before a release. If there's a
>>>>>> serious interest in it, I might be able to arrange a release of these
>>>>>> test cases under a free license (creative commons?). They are written
>>>>>> in German, though, and would need to be translated first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andor Ertsey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <lilyzhao8@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >> Hi all,
>>>>>> >> I think it's time for use to discuss and detail AOO 3.4
test plan
>>>>>> >> now.
>>>>>> >> Basically at current time I suggest:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hi Lily, Thanks for the proposal.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > For this to work we need:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 1) Test cases that are clear and easy to understand
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 2) Test cases that can be run without requiring a  lot of
>>>>>> > preparation
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 3) Test cases that can be run without dedicating much time.
 How can
>>>>>> > someone help who has only 1 hour to contribute?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 4) Test cases that can be run without learning a lot of other
tools
>>>>>> > or
>>>>>> processes
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from
Build
>>>>>> >>   Verification Testing(BVT in short).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Is the the same as a "smoke test"?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   3. Focus on test infrastructure set up. Start from case
>>>>>> >> management
>>>>>> tool.
>>>>>> >>   For 3.4, place the test cases on wiki and volunteer can
do
>>>>>> >> general
>>>>>> testing
>>>>>> >>   against. If volunteer couldn't write cases, may give the
test
>>>>>> >> scope
>>>>>> >> he
>>>>>> >>   would do. For example, which component etc. And then report
>>>>>> >> defects
>>>>>> >> in
>>>>>> >>   Apache Bugzilla.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Maybe we also need a "guide to writing test cases"?  Or point
to
>>>>>> > something that already exists for the project.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
>>>>>> >>   investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > OK.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > OK.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   6. Build private build before official build is ready
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > OK.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>   7. Platform will be covered
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>   - Windows XP
>>>>>> >>   - Win7 32bit/64bit
>>>>>> >>   - Where we only have a 32bit windows version, it should
run
>>>>>> >> against
>>>>>> >>   62bit windows version.
>>>>>> >>   - Redhat 6 32 bit/64 bit
>>>>>> >>   - Ubuntu 10.04 32 bit/64 bit
>>>>>> >>   - Mac 10.7
>>>>>> >>   - Mac 10.6.x
>>>>>> >>   - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
>>>>>> >>   - OS2
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > For platforms, maybe we think about them like this:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 1) In order to preserve the value of the OpenOffice brand among
>>>>>> > users
>>>>>> > and our reputation for high quality, we will have an official
Apache
>>>>>> > binary release only on platforms that have successfully completed
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > QA plan that we all agree on.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 2) Volunteers, based on their interests, will determine which
>>>>>> > platforms are officially supported in releases.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 3) Platforms that do not have enough volunteers to complete
the test
>>>>>> > plan would not have official Apache releases.  Or if we had
>>>>>> > releases,
>>>>>> > they would be called "experimental" or some other name to indicate
>>>>>> > that they were not fully tested.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 4) Of course, anyone is welcome to take our official source
releases
>>>>>> > and make a build on another platform and distribute it.  But
these
>>>>>> > would not be official Apache releases.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -Rob
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Welcome your comments.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>
>

Mime
View raw message