Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9E7F99DC for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:18:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51021 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2012 11:54:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 16496 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2012 11:51:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8302 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2012 11:26:21 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of maho.nakata@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.175] (HELO mail-gx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.161.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26:11 +0000 Received: by ggeq1 with SMTP id q1so2770528gge.6 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:25:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:message-id:to:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HIMfj+UFZwX3YVbVkpY6ihzCD1UhS0yrxIqYkQ8e0Uc=; b=Nx7v+91k0s0L+wAxGW2OVygXUYnv/Hei8Uap3qiGzw7LNoowMVUryhlR+VQqrBpa2v eI8HFTy9Z7LGNvfy8P8fi++OqFAMdZ5huzYP8EGjz0tVqz29y+Y9lz0OuqwHp8Hh660D 6glTLNOyNvmQi58iVICzdVYMXF5ggWMRpFsoo= Received: by 10.50.155.201 with SMTP id vy9mr861585igb.16.1329218750284; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:25:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rikad42.riken.jp. [134.160.214.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id al9sm25870822igc.5.2012.02.14.03.25.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:25:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: Maho NAKATA Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:25:46 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20120214.202546.563394049154998328.chat95@mac.com> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, lilyzhao8@gmail.com Subject: Re: Proposal for AOO test tool From: Maho NAKATA In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org From: xia zhao Subject: Re: Proposal for AOO test tool Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:32:15 +0800 > I give 1+ for test tools usage for AOO 4.0 based on below points: +1. > 1. For community product, we don't know if same resoruce will be there for > next release. right. > 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 > automaticed. YES. > 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] http://testlink.sourceforge.net/docs/testLink.php >> > -- >> >> 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 >>