Include and mandatory-include behaviour in test plans

Ara Pulido ara.pulido at
Wed Jun 17 12:35:24 UTC 2015

On 17/06/15 14:09, Maciej Kisielewski wrote:
> 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.

What are the goals of the mandatory jobs? Can you put an example, please?


> 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,
> Maciek

More information about the Checkbox-devel mailing list