Observation 1: We have test-writing related keywords in Bugzilla: * need-integration-test * need-parsertest * need-unittest
Obvservation 2: Without hard data to back up my claim, I feel like a large number of bugs reported are fixed but do not also include a test to the functionality. I might just be missing them. I don't think I am (at least always); I think they just aren't created. That's kind of the standard way of developing, right? ;) Suggestion: We use some kind of way of tracking this. Maybe not every bug fix needs an associated test, but I'd like to believe it is more than the ridiculously low percentage number that we are doing now. We might not use all of those current keywords (maybe just "needs-test" and let the dev team/QA person on point for that team figure it out). We can figure that part out later. Thoughts? Is this too cumbersome? Does anyone have experience with trying to accomplish something similar with a different group of engineers (both "dev" and "QA", where/if those are separate roles). We don't really have the bandwidth to start this in earnest right now, but should we start mulling it over? Greg -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ QA mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa
