Feedback on the QA cycle

Elfy ub.untu at
Fri Mar 21 12:01:10 UTC 2014

On 21/03/14 11:47, David Pires wrote:
> snip
>     I've yet to decide if some of the testcases are a bit too thorough
>     or if
>     they are just about right. I guess we can agree and assume that the
>     amount of bugs is somewhat correlating with how deep the tests
>     are. As I
>     see it though, the deeper and specific the tests are, the more
>     mechanic
>     running them is. Which leads us to exploratory testing...
> I agree that some of the tests may seem excessively long, and perhaps 
> even dense. But, and even falling in the role of advocating my own 
> cause since it was I who wrote some of the longer tests, I believe 
> that in some specific programs the existence of more complex and 
> demanding tests is justifiable in what QA is concerned and aims.
I can agree with this - we just need to look at which are *long*, which 
could be *longer, which could be *shorter* - or as I mentioned in 
another reply - 2 testcases, which would just need robust planning when 
it came to calling for tests.
> snip
> IMO, a reliable option would be the use of a automated testing tool, 
> such as Autopilot, extending features for testing applications such 
> as unit testing, regression testing, GUI testing, Web testing, 
> distributed testing and many others.
I love the idea of Autopilot, but as you know we've been looking at it 
for 2 cycles now and aren't much further forward - problems with 
Autopilot and it's interaction with GTK2 don't make it easy.
> snip

Ubuntu Forum Council Member
Xubuntu QA Lead

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list