Reporting bugs for packages in the ubuntu-manual-test

[Elfy]

On 22/01/15 18:22, Istimsak Abdulbasir wrote:
> You have a point. I picked Vino and Remmina, because
>
> 1) I like VNC networking, and did not want to cower away from learning
> something new
> 2) I started with these packages as an attempt to began contributing
> manual testcases
> 3) these packages are not currently being tested
>
> Of course I could have, and should have, tested packages that I am
> familiar with. My idea, as a tester, is to test everything, not just
> what you like. If this kind of thinking is not logical, I am happy to
> change. Personally, I prefer doing things that come naturally to me ;-)
>
Obviously you can write whichever ones you want :)

You asked for opinions - I gave you mine.


> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Elfy <ub.untu at btinternet.com
> <mailto:ub.untu at btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 22/01/15 14:24, istimsak wrote:
>     > Hello everyone. It has been awhile since my last contribution to
>     > ubuntu QA. Trying to get back into testing feels like stepping
>     into a
>     > whole new world again. Questions I will ask and things I will do
>     might
>     > seem a bit newbish to you. This happens when I lack effort.
>     >
>     > I was in the process of testing vino and remmina as these two
>     packages
>     > are in need of testcases. Since I have never used these packages, I
>     > needed to test them to get a feel for how they worked at the
>     basic level.
>     >
>     > Vino turned out to be a bit confusing. I learned this is the default
>     > VNC server for ubuntu-gnome. I an not using ubuntu gnome, don't have
>     > the hardware for it. I was testing it on my lubuntu laptop 14.04.
>     > The setup was not easy to configure or understand. It seems to be a
>     > server that must be executed from the command line. There was no man
>     > page for it. Online documentations were too brief and there are no
>     > other forms of configuration other than how a user connects to the
>     > server but not every attribute of the server, if this makes sense.
>     > During testing, I became more confused with this package. I filed a
>     > bug, not because it did not work, but because configuration
>     > documentation was limited. I wasn't sure what to do. Plus, I would
>     > think something installed by default should be simple for anyone to
>     > configure and use.
>     > What approach should I have taken?
>     >
>     > Istimsak Abdulbasir
>     Hi - whilst I applaud the effort to create manual testcases -
>     would you
>     not have felt more comfortable choosing something that you were more
>     familiar with?
>
>     There are currently 15 tagged as Lubuntu - would you not be better
>     served doing those to start with, of course you do really need to
>     do so
>     from the current dev release to ensure you're writing the test against
>     what is going to be tested.
>
>     regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Ubuntu-quality mailing list
>     Ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com
>     <mailto:Ubuntu-quality at lists.ubuntu.com>
>     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> "Collaboration is the new innovation" (Istimsak Abdulbasir, 2013)