Feedback on the QA cycle
ub.untu at btinternet.com
Fri Mar 21 12:01:10 UTC 2014
On 21/03/14 11:47, David Pires wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
Ubuntu Forum Council Member
Xubuntu QA Lead
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xubuntu-devel