Include and mandatory-include behaviour in test plans

Maciej Kisielewski maciej.kisielewski at
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
other jobs.

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...
URL: <>

More information about the Checkbox-devel mailing list