Difference between revisions of "Talk:COSMOS QA i9 Activities"

Revision as of 09:57, 1 February 2008

Bugzilla ER 216529 has the associated URL COSMOS_QA_i9_Activities

This talk page is tied to the URL for this ER.

Paul Stratton 29th Jan, 2008.

Jimmy, some updates and comments

1) Cosmos Dev process link included.

2) Are QA responsible for moving the ER from FIXED to VERIFIED ? If so this is an update to the Cosmos Dev process and this doc. If not then is there some signoff fr4om QA ?

3) The Platforms/Operating systems version (and all other dependencies )to be tested should be stated explicitely or provided via a link to the COSMOS M2 Dependencies.These should be the minimum versions for full testing. Sanity testing can then be performed for current GA versions of the dependencies - I added a couple of points to the relevent section.

4) QA should be responsible for checking the the test results to CVS ? Would need comitter status. This doc needs to specify how/what test results are submitted.

5) There should be some physical registering that QA are done with the iteration to avoid any misunderstandings with emails.

David whiteman.us.ibm.com 14:29, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Paul, re: #2 above, I don't know if this is documented anywhere, but in i8 we certainly followed the practice where QA is supposed to move ERs from FIXED to VERIFIED and in the case of regular defects it is whoever opened the defect that must verify it. We did have the problem in i8 where Shivy was only able to change to VERIFIED status if she opened the ER/defect, so I need to check with Mark to see if this restriction can be relaxed.

Re: #4, agreed. If there is no committer status, than QA should probably give test results to subproject leads for checkin.

David whiteman.us.ibm.com 14:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Jimmy, some comments on the document:

1. The weekly integration build will NOT be run on ALL platforms. They will run only on Windows. How do we address the lack of ongoing testing on additional platforms, i.e. Linux in i9?

I think you mean "weekly integration build testing", right?

Perhaps this is one place we might want to engage QA, to smoke test an integration build on Linux, since it doesn't appear that any developers are setup on that platform. We could define as minimal of a smoke test as makes sense.

QA will ***not*** run the JUnits; they will simply verify that the JUnits have been run and this is documented in Bugzilla

I though the process was: QA will not run the full JUnit suite. QA might run individual JUnit tests if these have been identified as verification steps for a completed ER.

You should also explicitly state that QA does not have any responsibility for testing weekly integration builds.

All ERs should have JUnits in place.

Maybe that should say "All ERs should have JUnits or a manual TPTP test in place."

Jimmy Mohsin 17:49, 31 January 2008 (EST) David, I have addressed all your comments from this section.