On 2011.11.14 12:28, Petr Mladek wrote: > Yifan Jiang píše v Ne 13. 11. 2011 v 18:46 +0800: >> For example: >> >> #EN - w001 xxx >> >> is supposed to have the same content with (but in different version of >> language): >> >> #FR - w001 xxx >> #DE - w001 xxx >> #pt-BR - w001 xxx >> >> These give us reasonable information showing which cases are supposed >> to be "synced" to each other (they may not have exact same steps of >> testing because of the diversity of language settings, but they should >> test the same areas). So for current testing organization, I think >> these ids are still playing their role in L10N test >> branches. Otherwise, syncing of cases could be painful.
Ah, this makes sense. > So, the number 001, 002, 003, 004 is a l10n test case number (something > like bugzilla number). Would be enough to mention it in brackets at the > end of the test case summary? I mean something like: > > p1 - test case summary (w#1,en) > p1 - another test case summary (w#2,en) > > and localized > > p1 - test case summary (w#1,en) > p1 - popis testu (w#1,cs) > p1 - Testfall Zusammenfassung (w#1,cs) > > I know that it is not ideal because it wont be that easy to sort the > test cases by the id and compare the list. On the other hand, syncing > localized test cases will not be easy anyway. I think that the bug > priority is more important sorting criteria > > Note that > > p1 #EN - w001 test case summary looks confusing to me. There are just > too many identifiers in the prefix. And it does not help with sorting as > well. P1 W01EN would be shorter. Still admittedly quite ugly though. >> Meanwhile in Function Regression testing branch, by the fact we are >> now using a single case to host all language versions of test case, it >> may not make sense to keep the id any more. Note the testcase still has its real id (used in the database). If needed, it could be made more visible. > This way, it would look the same for function regression test and > localization regression tests. The localization regression test will > just have some extra identification in the brackets. Like you said, this would make different testcases harder to associate with each other. OTOH, I guess only the admins often see them all in the same place. >>>> I suggest to split test cases into several levels by priorities: >> Actually it is a great idea to have priority here, at least they are >> helpful for us to define subset of test runs. For example, we can >> create "smoke test runs" by select P1 only test cases when creating a >> test run from a full regression branch containing all cases. > Exactly > >> That is to say, even before we sort out how order of the test cases >> could be implemented, we can always create specific test runs on >> demand via the information of the priority "tags". > BTW: How do you suggest to create the priority "tag"? Is there any > better solution than to put it into prefix of the test case summary? Well, as an alternative, branches/groups/subgroups could be reviewed again. :) Also, Litmus allows marking certain test runs as recommended and shows them on top. This means that separate P1 testruns could be created and promoted on Litmus homepage. Rimas _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
