Calendar:QA Chat:2007-11-01:Log

[18:32] <mschroeder> Hi ulf, Andreas
[18:32] <mschroeder> Let's start the QA chat.
[18:32] <Andreas> Hi mschroeder
[18:32] <mschroeder> The agenda: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:QA_Chat:2007-11-01
[18:33] <ulf_> hi, Martin!
[18:35] <mschroeder> I haven't had the time to write a newsgroup post (and Clint also).
[18:35] <mschroeder> Maybe I have time tomorrow and on the weekend.
[18:36] <ulf_> n.p. I was already wondering if we had agreed that this was an AI for me :-)
[18:36] <mschroeder> :)
[18:37] <mschroeder> Clint and I talked about the Automated Testing effort and we'll start to compile a tutorial.
[18:37] <ulf_> thats a great thing
[18:38] <mschroeder> I'll also compile a list of all idl files that could/should be tested with XPCShell.
[18:39] <mschroeder> We also talked about enabling Unit test on our tinderboxen per default.
[18:39] <mschroeder> What's your opinion on that?
[18:40] <ulf_> absolutely great
[18:40] <Andreas> THis re realy good news!
[18:40] <ulf_> you know we had a lot of trouble w. regressions in areas, we thought were stable
[18:41] <mschroeder> I'll try to create a patch and talk to ause. :)
[18:41] <ulf_> unit tests and automated test really bring us a big step ahead fighting back regressions
[18:41] <mschroeder> We already have the first regressions after 0.7 release and new patches.
[18:41] <ulf_> this will hopefully support us making releases less cumbersome in the future
[18:42] <ulf_> mschroeder: I'm well aware
[18:42] <mschroeder> ssitter has identified regression ranges for the new Calendar List & View bugs.
[18:43] <ulf_> looking back at 0.7: the loss of calendar display after upgrade really aches
[18:44] <mschroeder> absolutely
[18:44] <ulf_> mschroeder: can you provide more details on these regression ranges?
[18:45] <mschroeder> see bug 401878 and bug 401905
[18:45] <firebot> mschroeder: Bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401878 nor, --, ---, nobody@mozilla.org, NEW, Events of deselected calendars stays visible (reload necessary)
[18:45] <firebot> mschroeder: Bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401905 nor, --, ---, nobody@mozilla.org, NEW, Event grippies are no longer functional
[18:45] <ulf_> thanks!
[18:48] <mschroeder> Somebody put "Maybe looking through a list of proposed wanted bugs 0.8" on our agenda. I don't think that's our job.
[18:48] <mschroeder> Better: It definitely isn't our job, but sipaq's, daniel's and ctalbert's.
[18:50] <mschroeder> Should we have a Test Day next Tuesday?
[18:51] <ulf_> mschroeder: not sure, will we have some interesting new stuff to show?
[18:51] <ulf_> on the other hand I could very well think of some help providing new testcses/cleaning up litmus
[18:52] <ulf_> s/testcses/test cases
[18:52] <mschroeder> I don't think so regarding interesting new stuff.
[18:52] <mschroeder> damian and ctalbert are the Litmus experts. :)
[18:53] <ulf_> :-)
[18:53] <ulf_> perhaps we could motivate them to join
[18:54] <damian> hi ulf_, how can I help you?
[18:54] <mschroeder> Hi damian
[18:54] <ulf_> damian: I thought of a test case writing day or litmus clean up day in favor of a test day
[18:55] <damian> and?
[18:55] <ulf_> background: we probably still have lots of test cases around based on the previous UI
[18:56] <damian> I know how to manage litmus but Clint is saying if and when we have test days
[18:56] <damian> yes, that's true
[18:56] <damian> I think many
[18:56] * mschroeder can also decide this.
[18:56] <mschroeder> :)
[18:57] <ulf_> additionally those cases which already cover the new UI, formerly known as prototype UI are lengthy and ugly
[18:57] <damian> what you mean lengthy and ugly?
[18:57] <ulf_> damian: they are complicated to run
[18:58] <damian> but because they so complex or they are not written in way user understand them?
[18:59] <damian> so we should refactor them or rather split into simplier?
[18:59] <ulf_> both imo
[18:59] <mschroeder> I think, we should have a testcase writing day and clean up Litmus, BUT it needs more preparation.
[18:59] <ulf_> damian: yes
[19:00] <damian> sounds good, so will be helpful if we can encourage users to mark tests as invalid (not uptodate) and prepare simplier
[19:00] <damian> but I agrree, tests for new UI are needed
[19:01] <ulf_> mschroeder: in terms of preparing the respective 'test day' wiki page, or what do you mean w. preparation
[19:02] <mschroeder> We should have a plan, ie. a structured effort in migrating, cleaning up and creating testcases. :)
[19:02] <damian> mschroeder: can we wait untill more national UI will be supported? see my today's bugs
[19:03] <mschroeder> damian: Which bugs do you refer to?
[19:04] <damian> eg bug 402024
[19:04] <firebot> damian: Bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402024 maj, --, ---, nobody@mozilla.org, VERI INVALID, datetimepicker does not work
[19:04] <damian> testing polish ui is very difucult
[19:05] <ulf_> damian: hm, do we really should wait w. test cases in favor of more localization fixes?
[19:05] <mschroeder> but what is the connection to Litmus testcases?
[19:05] <ulf_> mschroeder: I don't see that either
[19:05] <damian> that we can't use national builds
[19:05] <damian> only en-UK works
[19:06] <ulf_> but it should be possible to file test cases based on the en UI in terms of functionality
[19:07] <mschroeder> ulf: I agree.
[19:08] <damian> ok
[19:09] <ulf_> mschroeder: I don't want to p***-off any L10n users, but I think it's a good time to (re-)work on test cases
[19:11] <mschroeder> ulf: We need that work done before we start Litmus testing again.
[19:13] <ulf_> how can we manage the work? I'm not sure whether litmus supports multiple users editing one file. But when online, we could align that.
[19:13] <mschroeder> Earliest date for such a testcase writing day is Nov 13th imo.
[19:13] <ulf_> fine with me!
[19:14] <damian> ult_ it does not support as far as i know - this is web tool
[19:17] <mschroeder> I don't know. I'll have to look at Litmus and the testcases. Maybe then I'll have an idea.
[19:20] <mschroeder> Anything else?
[19:21] <ulf_> mschroeder: I could imagine the following: on the chat user <A> says, he is going to rework Test Case ID 001 and he is going to decide what's best for this particular case: i.e modifying, generating new, breaking up in multiple ones etc.
[19:23] <ulf_> mschroeder: nothing particular
[19:24] <ulf_>  - having agreed on reworking test cases really is a big step, imo
[19:24] <mschroeder> ulf: Fallen had an IRC bot for reserving. Maybe it can be useful.
[19:24] <ulf_> sounds really great!
[19:25] <mschroeder> You could tell the bot which area you test/work on and also tell when finished.
[19:26] <mschroeder> And the others could kind of query the bot.
[19:26] <ulf_> that's brilliant
[19:27] <mschroeder> I think, we can end the QA chat and I start cooking. ;)