Include and mandatory-include behaviour in test plans

[Jeffrey Lane]

Just a comment about "greyed out" for jobs that are not user selectable (if
I read that right, this means jobs that appear and must run and the user
can not disable them).  Typically in UIs, greyed out means something is not
a valid option, or does not apply to this scenario.

For example, you may be in a UI that provides for certain tools, but those
options are greyed out if you're not in a certain mode, or certain data
hasn't been entered or whatever.

So at least from my perspective, greyed out means it's not applicable, not
"fixed or immutable".

But that's a minor quibble, the act of sorting all these things out is more
onerous.

Good luck!

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:00 PM Pierre Equoy <pierre.equoy at canonical.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Maciej Kisielewski <
> maciej.kisielewski at canonical.com> 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.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>
>
> Is it possible to have a "greyed-out" look in checkbox-cli?
>
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I think it's better if the tester is always aware of what's being run, so
> 3 and 4 should behave the same (i.e. be showed during job selection
> process, even if tester cannot interact with it).
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Have a good one,
>> Maciek
>>
>> --
>> Checkbox-devel mailing list
>> Checkbox-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/checkbox-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Pierre Equoy
> QA Engineer | Canonical
> www.canonical.com | www.ubuntu.com
>  --
> Checkbox-devel mailing list
> Checkbox-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/checkbox-devel
>
-- 
Sent via a phone. Please forgive brevity and typos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/checkbox-devel/attachments/20150618/c25bf0fb/attachment.html>