Calendar:QA Chat:2006-09-21 Log
ctalbert: I think it's about time to start the QA meeting now. Bery: yay! :) ctalbert: I like that enthusiasim (sp?) ctalbert: So, the agenda is at: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:QA_Chat:2006-09-21 ctalbert: Does anyone want to volunteer to put the IRC log onto the wiki after the meeting? celina63: I'll do it, I've become so adept :D ctalbert: Thanks. celina63: and yes, I can still do next week's meeting :) ctalbert: Cool. ctalbert: Next week, in case anyone doesn't know, I'll be up at Calconnect, so I probably won't be around much. celina63: you'll be hob-nobbing with the Mozilla folks in person then, right? ctalbert: that too celina63: jinx celina63: :D Bery: so, I'm just an observer ... what's the agenda for today? :) celina63: Bery: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:QA_Chat:2006-09-21 ctalbert: The main agenda for today was to put together the QA ToDo list for next week. Bery: Okay, I was looking at the Todo list as I commented earlier - looks like Lightning 0.1 to Lightning 0.3 is working fine, under Windows XP SP 2 and TB 18.104.22.168 :) Tested that this morning. ctalbert: Cool. I'll update it here in a moment. ctalbert: We're getting close to a Release candidate. But there are still some blocking bugs that are not well understood - either in how to reproduce them or in the cost of fixing them. jminta: did the 0.2->0.3 migration stuff get dropped? ctalbert: the code for that did get dropped. ctalbert: Wouldn't there be a way to do that by hand? ctalbert: Export/Import calendars jminta: yes, if people know where their profile is ctalbert: I left it on the list so that we could come up with some steps for doing that. Possibly to include in the relnotes. ctalbert: I'm going to head back to the top of the existing list and go straight down it. I think that will be more expedient. ctalbert: So, Looks like we can remove 323171 from the urgent blocker category. ctalbert: QA Wanted bugs will stay on the list ctalbert: (the list is here, by the way: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:QA_TODO ctalbert: Do we need to keep the "Upgrade testing from 0.3a2 and 0.3a1 on the list for another week? Sebo did some testing on it. ctalbert: What do people think? lilmatt: More testing == better until we have something else folks need to focus on IMHO lilmatt: but if there's more important stuff, we can cut it ctalbert: Let's see what people suggest to add. ctalbert: I think we'll leave lightning upgrade testing on the list. Bery has done a bit of work with it, but we'd like to get more coverage there. Bery: good plan Bery: I only tested one scenario, after all :) ctalbert: The next three have had no takers, so they stay. ctalbert: Damian has been really working hard on Litmus. So we'll take his completed tasks off. ctalbert: I'm going to make those quick edits now. While I'm doing that, does anyone have any suggestions for new items to go onto the list? Bery: *checks the list for items related to printing* celina63: I'm curious about the 3rd item on the current list Bery: The primary focus of my users is with printing and task list items (and, printing task list items :)) celina63: how can we test upgrading from the a1 and a2 to 0.3, until 0.3 is released? lilmatt: to the nightly lilmatt: since all 0.3 will be is a "blessed" nightly ctalbert: lilmatt: What's the official story on printing? Your stuff landed in sunbird, right? lilmatt: Yes. lilmatt: If we get time to do the crappy menuitem hack in Lightning, we'll put that in as well. Bery: oh, whatever happened to the "hide completed items" checkbox for todo lists? ctalbert: Ok folks can reload the TODO list. It's updated ctalbert: I think one of the important things we need to do right now, is to verify the fixes that are landing as the blockers get fixed. ctalbert: Bery: I'm not sure Bery: One of my users extensively used the task list feature, but when the checkbox disappeared it got kind of useless (because his list was so darn long) ctalbert: I understand. But, we can't promise any new features at this late stage for 0.3. ctalbert: lilmatt: did the timezone database changes go in, or were those removed in the last round of triaging? lilmatt: removed lilmatt: too scary *** mikeal has joined #calendar-qa. ctalbert: hello mikeal mikeal: hiya Bery: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310258 - it has a bug report already, that's good enough for me ctalbert: Does anyone have any other ideas of what to Add to the QA Todo list? I think I'll add some printing testcases for Sunbird. If those seem to work out okay, then perhaps we can convince dmose to put printing support into Lightning. ctalbert: Besides, I don't think the Sunbird printing feature has been throughly tested yet. ctalbert: mikeal: the ToDo list in question is at: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:QA_TODO mikeal: ok, thanks ctalbert: np ctalbert: Speak up if anyone has ideas of things to add (or remove) from that list. I want to go on to the last agenda item. ctalbert: I believe that Damian wrote that, and he's not here at the moment. Essentially, he's wanting systematic way to scour the buglists for potential litmus testcases. mikeal: do you guys have caldav tests written yet? mikeal: sorry, automated caldav tests ctalbert: Not very many tests written, and no automated ones. ctalbert: jminta, lilmatt: would there be anyproblem with adding a whiteboard item to designate "potential testcase" in bugzilla? mikeal: ok, can you point me at docs on how to write/run automated sunbird/lighting tests ctalbert: mikeal: certainly. lilmatt: ctalbert: I don't see an issue, but jminta/dmose might know better mikeal: I work at OSAF and we want to add these for interop anyway lilmatt: [add testcase] xFallenAngel: is there not already a "testcase" xFallenAngel: whiteboard item? celina63: what do you use for automated testing celina63: ? mikeal: we have about a dozen tools mikeal: it varies a lot xFallenAngel: there is a testcase keyword mikeal: most of the current server test tools just make raw HTTP requests, the web UI is tested with Selenium and the json-rpc backend it tested with a raw HTTP tool ctalbert: Yes, there's a lot of discussion in the mozilla QA side that is trying to standarize on a common set, but I don't believe that has converged. Let's talk about this at the end of the calendar QA meeting, please. mikeal: and then Chandler has it's own scripting layer built on wx that we use to automate everything using the UI mikeal: ok ctalbert: xFallenAngel: Maybe then it would be best to use that keyword ctalbert: I think using that keyword would be the right approach. I'll take this up with dmose and any bugzilla admins I need to. xFallenAngel: does this keyword need to be set by a developer, or can it be requested/set by anyone? jminta: the testcase keyword means a testcase exists for the bug already ctalbert: I just want to encourage everyone to add that keyword to bugs with good Steps to Reproduce that would make sense to be testcases that would be run on an ongoing basis. ctalbert: xFallenAngel: That's the kind of thing I need to figure out. ctalbert: jminta: then would a whiteboard item be better? ctalbert: xFallenAngel: Ideally, I want both developer and QA to be able to set the attribute. jminta: sure [needs testcase] or [testcase wanted] ssitter: xFallenAngel: see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describekeywords.cgi for meaning of keywords jminta: anyone with editbugs should be able to do that ctalbert: Cool. I'll suggest those to Damian then. ssitter: mmh, it's not clear if you want a testcase attached to bug (e.g. ics sample) or a new testcase in litmus ctalbert: [litmus testcase wanted] ctalbert: how's that ^^^ xFallenAngel: well, if the bug already has most steps for the testcase, they litmus testcase wanted sounds more like there is something missing. I suggest [valid litmust testcase] xFallenAngel: -t ctalbert: sounds good to me. ctalbert: Anyone else have a thought about it? It needs to be something we can all remember easily. ctalbert: Going once.... celina63: sounds good to me ctalbert: ssitter, what do you think about it? xFallenAngel: we could note it on the wiki somewhere, then we can look it up if we forget? ssitter: maybe [litmus testcase wanted] and [has litmus testcase]? ctalbert: xFallenAngel: we will. ctalbert: I like those two. That way we have a way to follow up after the testcase is created. ssitter: we just add some new queries to qa_links page ctalbert: That too ctalbert: I think I'm going to change my vote to ssitter's proposal. I like the idea of tracking what we've put into Litmus. Because Litmus isn't all that good at keeping track of these things yet. ssitter: or instead of [has litmus testcase] just create a bug comment like 'litmus testcase 12345 created' ssitter: this helps to keep status whiteboard clean ctalbert: good idea ctalbert: Does anyone object to that idea? ctalbert: Does anyone have anything else to add to the QA TODO list. I've made the updates we discussed. ctalbert: Okay. Anyone have anything else to discuss, we have about four minutes left to this meeting. (Besides automated testing - we'll get to that next). * ctalbert hasn't forgotten mikeal mikeal: :) ctalbert: Ok. Don't forget to update the ToDo list with the things you do. Thanks for all your time. ctalbert: Happy testing. * ctalbert takes off his "official calendar-qa meeting hat"