canmove, Confirmed users
2,041
edits
QA/Firefox 4/Test Plan/WebsocketsTestplan: Difference between revisions
QA/Firefox 4/Test Plan/WebsocketsTestplan (view source)
Revision as of 20:08, 29 July 2010
, 29 July 2010→Developer QA Review
| Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
* Do we have automated tests for the feature? | * Do we have automated tests for the feature? | ||
'''smaug''': Yes. content/base/test should have some tests. | |||
* What do they cover? | * What do they cover? | ||
'''smaug''': Look for the tests. ('''geo''': [http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/test/ tests] look for websocket and _ws_) | |||
* What do they not cover? | * What do they not cover? | ||
'''smaug''': Evil protocol frames, I think. Basically something that the implementation may not expect to get from server. | |||
* How well do they cover the feature? | * How well do they cover the feature? | ||
'''smaug''': Hard to say | |||
* What are the important areas we should focus on? | * What are the important areas we should focus on? | ||
'''smaug''': Testing websockets in different kinds of environments. Proxies, ssl, etc. | |||
* What are the dependencies? | * What are the dependencies? | ||
'''smaug''': I don't understand this. ('''geo''': discussed briefly on IRC, doesn't seem like there are notable dependencies.) | |||
* What is our comfort level with this feature in its current state? | * What is our comfort level with this feature in its current state? | ||
'''smaug''': after [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572975 bug 572975] and [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573227 bug 573227] things should look pretty good. | |||
* What feedback would you like from QA? | * What feedback would you like from QA? | ||
'''smaug''': Basic testing. Especially when websocket is used with proxies or inside firewalls or something like that. | |||
[[#Feature_Documentation|top]] | [[#Feature_Documentation|top]] | ||