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
1.5.0.7 :) 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"