incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From xia zhao <>
Subject Re: Proposal for AOO test tool
Date Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:32:15 GMT
I give 1+ for test tools usage for AOO 4.0 based on below points:
1. For community product, we don't know if same resoruce will be there for
next release.
2. We sould follow the strategy that automtic more and more test cases, but
for these automated test cases, as one experienced QA who have worked
on this area for nearly 10 years, many automatic test cases comes from
manual test cases, that is, bettter structuring the cases first and
selecting some to automatic, considering that not all of cases can be
3. Form quality view, it's better have one tool to track QA effort.

But one easy and simple to maintance testing tool should be proposed.

Besides, Rob's transfering bugzilla issues to test cases is one good idea.

2012/2/14 Rob Weir <>

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Ji Yan <> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >  Recently, I'm thinking about how testing work should be done and what
> the
> > procedure should followed under Apache OO structure. Before OO goes into
> > ASF, testing work was controlled by QUASTe and manual test cases stored
> in
> > TCM but both tools were disconnected once Oracle donated OO to Apache.
> Now,
> > it's time for us to think about how can we move on for testing.
> >  While within AOO 3.4, we store the manual scripts in wiki page, it's
> good
> > place at this time, but should not be permanent. As it's hard to tell
> test
> > status and collect testing data, also it has no connection with
> automation
> > test tool.
> I wonder if Bugzilla would be better than the wiki?
> We could create a "product" in BZ for all test cases, with
> "components" under that for different test areas, like "performance
> test", "smoke test", "detailed test", etc.
> One BZ issue per test case.
> For each test pass, we simply reset each test case/issue back to "New
> state".  We then test each issue.  If the test case passes, then we
> mark the BZ issue as closed.  If the test case fails, then we already
> have a BZ issue for the developers.
> Pro: Makes it very easy to make new test cases from existing BZ
> issues, or to make BZ issues from testcases.
> Con: Reporting not so good.   Does not handle doing multiple test
> passes in parallel.  For example, if we wanted to test AOO 4.0 in
> parallel with a maintenance AOO 3.4.1 release.
> >  After review some tools, I find the "Test Link"[1], maybe the proper
> tool
> > for us to manage testing work. If anyone has any suggestion on other
> tools,
> > please let me know. The target is to customize and deploy it to OO
> > website. I'll move forward with this tool with no objection
> >
> > [1]
> > --
> I tried their demo site.  It was very slow.  Does anyone have
> experience with Test Link?
> The above link should be only one sample. The performance depends on the
where to host it and the network speed. I care more about even TestLink is
one good tool to community to use, is it possible ASF host it?

> -Rob
> >
> > Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message