Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "COSMOS QA i9 Activities"

m ('''In scope i9 ERs''')
('''In scope i9 ERs''')
Line 28: Line 28:
 
=== '''In scope i9 ERs''' ===
 
=== '''In scope i9 ERs''' ===
  
[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=Technology&product=Cosmos&version=1.0&target_milestone=1.0i9&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_severity=enhancement&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= (Bugzilla: i9 Enhancements)]
+
Please refer to http://wiki.eclipse.org/Cosmos1.0Features#Iteration_9_Enhancements for the list of ERs that QA will need to test as part of the i9 testing phase that runs from February 25 thru March 7.
 
+
{|border = "1" cellpadding="1"
+
|-
+
!Priority
+
!Enhancement
+
!Description
+
!Estimate (PW)
+
!Subproject
+
!Assigned owner(s) to drive designs
+
!Assigned for implementation
+
|-
+
|P1 - blocks 215521
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=215123 215123]
+
|Complete CMDBf 1.0 Service Metadata implementation  [[COSMOS_Design_212185|(design)]]
+
|1.2
+
|
+
|Bill Muldoon
+
|Bill Muldoon, Joel Hawkins
+
|-
+
|P1 - blocks 214672
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214903 214903]
+
|Provide a mechanism for testing the registration service and client [[COSMOS_Design_214903|(design)]]
+
|2
+
|DC
+
|Ali Mehregani
+
|Ali Mehregani
+
|-
+
|P1 - blocks ERs
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=215267 215267]
+
| Provide support for adding a federating CMDB to COSMOS framework [[COSMOS_Design_215267|(design)]]
+
|4.6
+
|DC
+
|Ali Mehregani
+
|Ali Mehregani
+
|-
+
|P1 - blocks 205826
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=205825 205825]
+
|Update SML validator implementation based on changes to the SML latest draft [[COSMOS Design 205825 |(design)]]
+
|5
+
|RM
+
|Valentina Popescu
+
|Ali Mehregani, Valentina Popescu
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=205826 205826]
+
|Update DataCenter model based on latest SML changes [[COSMOS Design 205826|(design)]]
+
|0.2
+
|RM
+
|Valentina Popescu
+
|Valentina Popescu
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=208274 208274]
+
|Create a data manager toolkit that will allow adopters to easily register and use a data provider inside COSMOS framework  [[COSMOS_Design_208274|(design)]]
+
|6
+
|ME
+
|David Whiteman
+
|David Whiteman, Hubert Leung
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214145 214145]
+
|Generic CMDBf Graph Response View  [[COSMOS_Design_214145|(design)]]
+
|3.4
+
|DV
+
|Sheldon Lee-Loy
+
|Martin Simmonds, John Todd
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214672 214672]
+
|Registration of MDR configuration items with a federating CMDB  [[COSMOS Design 214672 |(design)]]
+
|4.4
+
|DV
+
|Sheldon Lee-Loy
+
|Sheldon Lee-Loy
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214794 214794]
+
|Generic CMDBf Query Builder [[COSMOS Design 214794 |(design)]]
+
|3.4
+
|DV
+
|Sheldon Lee-Loy
+
|Bill Muldoon
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=217301 217301]
+
|Visualizing a CMDBf status response [[COSMOS Design 214672 |(design)]]
+
|
+
|DV
+
|Sheldon Lee-Loy
+
|Leondard Richardson
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=209980 209980]
+
|MDR (and Data Manager) deployment outside of OSGi environment  [[COSMOS_Design_209980|(design)]]
+
|3
+
|DC
+
|Hubert Leung
+
|Hubert Leung
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=216809 216809]
+
|Line up JAX-WS annotations and management annotations in ME [[COSMOS_Design_216809|(design)]]
+
|2
+
|DC
+
|Hubert Leung
+
|Hubert Leung, Joel Hawkins
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=215135 215135]
+
|Establish a process for running JUnits against a COSMOS build
+
|
+
|Project/Process
+
|Balan Subramanian
+
|
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=216210 216210]
+
|Define COSMOS 1.0 hardware & software operational guidelines, recommendations, and best practices
+
|
+
|RE
+
|Balan Subramanian
+
|
+
|-
+
|P2
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=216211 216211]
+
|We need an ongoing Build process to facilitate a continuous test loop
+
|
+
|RE
+
|Balan Subramanian
+
|
+
|-
+
|
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=216591 216591]
+
|build "fire alarm" notification email
+
|
+
|RE
+
|Balan Subramanian
+
|
+
|-
+
|
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=216332 216332]
+
|Complete design for COSMOS Security - phase 2
+
|
+
|
+
|Jimmy Mohsin
+
|
+
|-
+
|
+
|[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=216529 216529]
+
|Define and detail the i9 QA activities
+
|
+
|
+
|Shivy
+
|Shivy
+
|}
+
  
 
=== '''In scope platforms, OS's & configurations''' ===
 
=== '''In scope platforms, OS's & configurations''' ===

Revision as of 16:14, 31 January 2008

COSMOS QA Activities for i9

This has been put together to address Bugzilla ER 216529.

Terminologies/Acronyms

The terminologies/acronyms below are commonly used throughout this document. The list below defines each term regarding how it is used in this document.

Term Definition
Quality Expectations Is a statement of some behaviour, characteristic or operational facility that a product must exhibit for it to be deemed ‘fit for purpose’. Quality expectations are normally grouped into four main categories: functional/behavioural, operational efficiency, inter operability factors; and admin/management factors (to control TCO).
Acceptance Criteria This is a quantification of how a quality expectation is to be validated. For functional/behavioural quality expectations this is a simple Boolean test – it either works or it doesn’t. Hence, for most scope docs there is no need to specifically define functional acceptance criteria. However, other types of quality expectations – especially performance related areas – do require specific acceptance criteria because the quantification is normally some form of numeric threshold (with optional margin/tolerance) that states minimum levels of acceptable operational efficiency.

Scope Definition

The COSMOS quality expectations and the matching acceptance criteria, that would serve as a preamble to the COSMOS QA team while executing their work, were completed via ER 214576.

Since i9 is the first iteration to utilize the QA Expectations, we need to define the i9 QA activities upfront. This will enable us to translate the QA Expectations into an actionable series of steps that ensure QA coverage for i9. This will also serve as the QA plan for i9. Depending on how we execute the QA cycle this time around, we may append to the COSMOS Development Process.

In scope i9 ERs

Please refer to http://wiki.eclipse.org/Cosmos1.0Features#Iteration_9_Enhancements for the list of ERs that QA will need to test as part of the i9 testing phase that runs from February 25 thru March 7.

In scope platforms, OS's & configurations

Because i9 is a compressed iteration, Windows will remain the primary OS, with a "smoke test" on Linux. i9 QA will cover the following configurations:

  1. One Management Domain and Broker running on one machine
  2. TBD MDRs running on TBD machines
  3. TBD Data Manager(s) running on TBD machines

In scope and out of scope QA activities at the ER and iteration level

For i9, QA will complete (and ***not*** complete) the following activities:

  1. QA will not be doing build-related tasks. They will commence the i9 test phase on Februaury 25 with the following pre-requisites
    1. Since ER 215135 "JUnits Establish a process for running JUnits against a COSMOS build" will ***not*** be completed in i9, Development will run the JUnits against the weekly integration builds.
    2. The sub-team leads need to ensure that this stop gap activity happens in i9 until 215135 is completed sometime in i10.
    3. To reiterate, QA will commence the i9 testing phase with the KEY assumption that multiple weekly build have occurred, and ALL JUnits have been run against these weekly builds
  2. QA will verify that the JUnits or alternate testing mechanisms are in place for each of the i9 ERs listed above
    1. QA will ***not*** run the JUnits; they will simply verify that the JUnits have been run and this is documented in Bugzilla
    2. If any ER is missing the JUnits, QA will immediately punt the ER back to Development
  3. QA will run the end to end test as specified on http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_i9_e2e_testing
  4. QA will identify the platforms and configurations via Test Cases they will document below.

ISSUES:

  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?

Iteration QA Entrance and Exit Criteria

The following items need to be in place before the 2 week i9 QA phase can commence:

  1. A stable i9 build that has undergone multiple integration build during the course of the Development phase which ends on February 22, 2008
  2. http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_i9_e2e_testing is complete

The following items need to be in place before the 2 week i9 QA phase can be declared complete:

  1. All ERs should have JUnits in place. If JUnits are not applicable to a given ER, alternative verification means need to be specified. To reiterate, QA are not expected to run the JUnits. In i9, this activity will be completed as part of the weekly iteration builds. In i10, this will be fully automated once ER 215135 is completed.
  2. The e2e tests for i9 (http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_i9_e2e_testing) are run against the final i9 build
    1. QA needs to publish a date by when they need the final i9 build. I believe they can do so once http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_i9_e2e_testing is complete.

i9 Test Cases

Should these be documented here? If not, where should they live?

Resources & timeframe

i9 QA will be completed by two dedicated CA resources. The i9 QA phase will run from February 25 thru March 7.

TBD

Task Breakdown

This section includes the tasks required to complete this enhancement.

  1. Jimmy Mohsin has generated this page to address bugzilla 216529
  2. The COSMOS team needs to identify the relevant section for this page.
  3. Shivvy, representing the QA team, is supposed to complete this activity by Februrary 22, 2008. This is prior to the commencement of the QA phase for i9.

Open Issues/Questions

All reviewer feedback should go in the Talk page for 216529.


Back to the top