Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

COSMOS QA i9 Activities

Revision as of 09:57, 31 January 2008 by (Talk | contribs) ('''In scope platforms, OS's & configurations''')

COSMOS QA Activities for i9

This has been put together to address Bugzilla ER 216529.


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.


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

(Bugzilla: i9 Enhancements)

Priority Enhancement Description Estimate (PW) Subproject Assigned owner(s) to drive designs Assigned for implementation
P1 - blocks 215521 215123 Complete CMDBf 1.0 Service Metadata implementation (design) Bill Muldoon Bill Muldoon, Joel Hawkins
P1 - blocks 214672 214903 Provide a mechanism for testing the registration service and client (design) 2 DC Ali Mehregani Ali Mehregani
P1 - blocks ERs 215267 Provide support for adding a federating CMDB to COSMOS framework (design) 4.6 DC Ali Mehregani Ali Mehregani
P1 - blocks 205826 205825 Update SML validator implementation based on changes to the SML latest draft (design) 5 RM Valentina Popescu Ali Mehregani, Valentina Popescu
P2 205826 Update DataCenter model based on latest SML changes (design) 0.2 RM Valentina Popescu Valentina Popescu
P2 208274 Create a data manager toolkit that will allow adopters to easily register and use a data provider inside COSMOS framework (design) 6 ME David Whiteman David Whiteman, Hubert Leung
P2 214145 Generic CMDBf Graph Response View (design) 3.4 DV Sheldon Lee-Loy Martin Simmonds, John Todd
P2 214672 Registration of MDR configuration items with a federating CMDB (design) 4.4 DV Sheldon Lee-Loy Sheldon Lee-Loy
P2 214794 Generic CMDBf Query Builder (design) 3.4 DV Sheldon Lee-Loy Bill Muldoon
P2 209980 MDR (and Data Manager) deployment outside of OSGi environment (design) 3 DC Hubert Leung Hubert Leung
P2 216809 Line up JAX-WS annotations and management annotations in ME (design) 2 DC Hubert Leung Hubert Leung, Joel Hawkins
P2 215135 Establish a process for running JUnits against a COSMOS build Project/Process Balan Subramanian
P2 216210 Define COSMOS 1.0 hardware & software operational guidelines, recommendations, and best practices RE Balan Subramanian
P2 216211 We need an ongoing Build process to facilitate a continuous test loop RE Balan Subramanian
P2 215534 Need Component value cosmos.doc in Bugzilla Project/Process Mark Weitzel
216591 build "fire alarm" notification email RE Balan Subramanian
216332 Complete design for COSMOS Security - phase 2 Jimmy Mohsin
216529 Define and detail the i9 QA activities Shivy Shivy

In scope platforms, OS's & configurations

For i9 QA will conduct FULL TESTING on the following platforms / operating systems:

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

  1. Windows
  2. Linux

For i9 QA will conduct SANITY TESTING on the following platforms / operating systems:

  1. Windows ???
  2. 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

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 covers ??? ERs
  2. TBD

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.
  2. The e2e tests for i9 need to be run against the final i9 build
  3. TBD

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.


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