Include and mandatory-include behaviour in test plans
maciej.kisielewski at canonical.com
Wed Jun 17 12:09:18 UTC 2015
With the advent of a field specifying mandatory jobs for test plan units
(which I will call 'mandatory-include' from now on), there are a few design
decisions we have to make.
If you have better alternatives for my approach below, please, do share :-)
As the job may be present in the 'include' and/or 'mandatory-include'
fields, we have 4 scenarios. This is my proposed behaviour for them:
1) not included, not mandatory-included
Job shouldn't be available on job-selection screen. Job should never run.
Note that if the job is required by other job it may become visible and,
when selected, might be run.
2) included, not mandatory-included
Job should be available on job-selection screen, user should be able to
select and deselect it. It should be run only when selected or required by
3) not included, mandatory-included
Job should not be listed in job-selection screen and it should ALWAYS run.
4) included and mandatory-included
Job should be listed in job-selection screen, but user should not be able
to deselect it. It should always run.
Jobs that are not deselectable should be rendered differently to cue the
user (e.g. greyed-out)
As an alternative, 3) could behave like 4) with advice from validators,
that when placed in 'mandatory-include' the job doesn't have to be
specified in the 'include'.
What do you think?
Have a good one,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Checkbox-devel