Importance flow chart
Hi all It is sometimes raised that the flow chart we use as a recommendation for setting a Bugzilla ticket's importance (priority + severity) is inadequate in some cases. For a recent example, see https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161217 Julien has commented on the topic on the Discussion page for that flow chart: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File_talk:Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg If you have some thoughts on the topic, or think it should be updated / augmented for any other reason, please comment on the wiki as well. Note that we already have some notes at the bottom of the chart, that explain that the chart is indicative and other parameters should be taken into account when setting the Importance. One thing that is not included but is commonly done is that the Priority level can be raised if the author of the commit that caused a regression is not active anymore, and therefore unlikely to look into it. Thank you! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email: stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web: https://stragu.gitlab.io/
Re: Minutes from the UX/design meeting 2023-Apr-24
On 25/4/24 09:06, Eyal Rozenberg wrote: * Make possible 2 or more impress in fullscreen each on a dedicated monitor AND each seekable independently with user-defined hotkeys per each file + https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160242 First of all, I really think this bug report should have been split up into several ones - and the issues were sort of mapped on the bug page: A. run two presentations full-screen at same time (on two monitors) B. Keyboard-navigate in two running full-screen presentation (i.e. different shortcuts) C. Same as B, but arbitrary number of presentations D. Support per-presentation navigation shortcut choices, persisted in the ODP file Suggest breakup instead then INVALID (or MOVED) on this one. I would say A - NEW B - UNCONFIRMED (or LATER?) C, D - WONTFIX Thanks Eyal! Please go ahead and open a new report for A if you think that's the way to go. Let's hold off on B. Cheers -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email: stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web: https://stragu.gitlab.io/
QA weekly focus: Crashes
Hi all This week, please join us to review some bug reports involving *crashes*. More details on the pad: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa If you have questions, join us on IRC (of the bridged Telegram channel): https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/IRC Thank you for your valuable contributions to the project! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
weekly focus: hyperlinks
Hi all! This week, we can focus on reviewing some of the issues in the "Hyperlink" meta bug tdf#107733: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=107733_resolved=1 <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=107733_resolved=1> There are many aspects to hyperlinks, and issues can arise from the type of object that is hyperlinked, what the target is (to website, to send an email, internal to the document, to create a new document), how they are interacted with, if they survive an export to PDF or an import from other formats... Related features are Form Controls like push buttons, and Interactions used in Impress. Let's review the existing reports to see if they still apply, CC the UX/Design team if an enhancement request needs input, and report other issues we spot along the way! As always, please join the QA chat on IRC to ask questions, or reply to this email, and share notes in the public pad: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa Thanks for your help! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
QA weekly focus: Templates
Hi QA team! Lately, there has been a fair bit of activity around *templates*, in particular with Laurent Balland's help polishing Impress Templates, fixing a wealth of small issues. Jun Nogata also improved some Writer and Impress templates. See for example the Impress section in the 24.2 release notes: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/24.2#Impress We have a meta bug to track such template issues: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103314 This week we can focus on reviewing template issues to see if they are still relevant, categorising template bugs that are not yet linked in the meta bug, and testing the existing templates to spot further issues. Note that you can enrich your template collection (and contribute your own gems!) using our Extensions website: https://extensions.libreoffice.org/?Tags%5B%5D=118 And to get started with creating and using you own templates, head to the Guide: https://books.libreoffice.org/en/GS75/GS7504-StylesTemplatesHyperlinks.html#toc33 To communicate: * Feel free to add links and notes to our collaborative QA pad: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa * Don't hesitate to chat with the team on IRC and ask questions: https://web.libera.chat/?chan=#libreoffice-qa Thanks again for all your contributions! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
Re: [libreoffice-design] Re: Minutes from the UX/design meeting 2023-Dec-20
Hi all On 22/12/2023 10:15, Eyal Rozenberg wrote: The font embedding is an example of a deeper issue: If LibreOffice is a 'native' ODT editor; and if you open an ODT in it; and if you don't effect any changes in that ODT, but just save; is it legitimate for the resulting ODT to be in any way different than the original (other than meta-data regarding modification date etc.) ? I think it might be legitimate in various cases. One example I can think of is how fileopen checks on a few things depending on what the user has or doesn't have, notably linked files and images. I think there's some similarity: fonts might get embedded if the file properties ask to do it, depending on the font's availability on the system it is opened on. Do you think there should be feedback to the user when such a thing happens? (e.g. a message saying "Font XYZ found, embedding it into the file. See File > Properties > Fonts to change that option."). And why would you save the file in the first place, if you haven't changed anything? Sorry if I'm missing the point :) On 22/12/2023 9:11, Heiko Tietze wrote: On 21.12.23 20:05, Eyal Rozenberg wrote: "LibreOffice unexpectedly and strangely modifies an ODT file without they user having done anything, and embedding unnecessary fonts nobody asked it to." Sounds like another facet of the font embedding. I would treat bug 158588 about what fonts are embedded (CTL/CJK/Lat and used) and handle the situation of shared documents on another. I haven't tested what happens when one checks the embed fonts option and shares this document with another person. Assuming her fonts would also be included, silently, this is at least a privacy issue. Just curious, what concrete privacy concerns do you see here? But maybe the "notification" I suggested above would be enough to make the change transparent and the user aware. Cheers -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email: stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web: https://stragu.gitlab.io/
QA weekly focus: new features in 24.2
Hi all! With version 24.2 planned for early February 2024, and the first beta released last week, it's time to check the new features, see if some are not listed in our release notes, and make sure that the Help pages are up to date - before the string freeze planned for later in the week. You can grab the beta1 from here: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download-libreoffice/?version=24.2.0 Here are some tasks we can focus on: * Enhancement request that might need mentioning in the release notes: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=enhancement_status=RESOLVED_status=VERIFIED_status=CLOSED=status_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_id=1682605=notsubstring=notsubstring_format=advanced=FIXED_whiteboard=target%3A24.2_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr=inReleaseNotes=target%3A7.6 <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=enhancement_status=RESOLVED_status=VERIFIED_status=CLOSED=status_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_id=1682605=notsubstring=notsubstring_format=advanced=FIXED_whiteboard=target%3A24.2_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr=inReleaseNotes=target%3A7.6> * If you add something to the release notes, please add "inReleaseNotes:24.2" to the Whiteboard field * Review (and translate!) the release notes on our wiki: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/24.2 * Are new features documented in the corresponding Help pages? If not, note that you can edit them directly from Gerrit: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/GerritEditing Our collaborative pad here: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa Thank you, and have a great week! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
[Libreoffice-qa] Weekly Focus: Navigator
Hi QA team! Last week, we focused on the Android Viewer, recently made available again on Google Play. In the space of a week, contributors touched a total of *32 reports*, of which 15 were confirmed. 8 issues were closed, of which 5 were fixed. Thanks everyone, and in particular: Kira, Sophie, Impreza, Michael, Eric, Christophe and Vani! This week, we test the *Navigator*. Over the last few major releases, this very useful feature has seen a regular flow of improvement, in big part thanks to Jim Raykowski's work. For example: * 6.4: greyed out categories when they're not relevant * 7.0: a bunch of new context menu items; outline tracking; navigation toolbox replaced by "Navigate by"; section's word count in tooltip * 7.2: Fields are listed * 7.3: Footnotes and Endnotes are listed * 7.4: expert setting NavigateOnSelect allows jumping to the element with a single click * 7.5: hovering over an element highlights it on canvas; Impress and Draw objects can be drag-and-dropped to reorder them and manage groups; the Navigator can be used in Notes view as well * 7.6: in Impress, objects can be sorted with top-most object at the beginning of the list * 24.2: linkable elements can be drag-and-dropped onto a text selection; hidden headings are greyed out in Outline Folding mode The relevant meta bug is this one: * Tree view: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=103030_resolved=1 <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=103030_resolved=1> * List view: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?f1=blocked_id=1677332=substring_format=advanced=---=103030 <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?f1=blocked_id=1677332=substring_format=advanced=---=103030> Please help us review the existing reports, categorise the ones that are not listed, and stress-test the feature for the upcoming release. And feel free to use our collaborative pad to share resources: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa Thanks again for your contributions! :) -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
[Libreoffice-qa] Weekly Focus: Android Viewer
Hi QA team! Last week, we focused on getting the number of "QA:needsComment" reports down. We went from 160 to 135 in one week – the lowest number since July 2020! Thanks everyone! Let's keep an eye on those ones regularly to make sure no issue is lost in history. You can track how the tally changes in the QA Dashboard (Timelines tab): https://stragu.shinyapps.io/lo_qa_dashboard/ For this week, we want to have a look at existing reports about the Android Viewer, and also test the latest build to make sure no serious new issue has popped up. This is because we are planning to have the Android Viewer back in Google Play! Even though it has never left the F-Droid repositories, it hadn't been updated until earlier in the year. Now that it is up to date on F-Droid, the app will also be re-listed on Google Play to reach more users. To test a recent build, you can either use the build available on F-Droid, or head to this link to get a more recent trunk build: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/nwjnmXCssQYQPp7 If you don't have an Android device, you can use an emulator, for example: * quickemu (along with quickgui if you want a graphical user interface): https://github.com/quickemu-project/quickgui#readme * Waydroid: https://waydro.id/ * Android Studio: https://developer.android.com/studio/run/emulator Please review the existing reports listed here: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?component=Android%20Editor=Android%20Viewer_id=1675448_format=advanced=--- <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?component=Android%20Editor=Android%20Viewer_id=1675448_format=advanced=---> We start the week with 36 open reports, but it is possible that some of those are not relevant anymore, or need to be updated. Notes: * The "Android Viewer" can also edit documents, if Experimental Mode is turned on. * The Android Viewer uses the same codebase as desktop LibreOffice, which is why it is part of the same product on Bugzilla. Therefore, a bug you experience in the Viewer might already be reported in e.g. the Writer component. * If an issue can be reproduced in Collabora's Android app, but not in the LibreOffice Android Viewer, the report might have to be marked as "moved" to the Collabora repository: https://github.com/CollaboraOnline/online/issues As always, thank you for your help! And please join us on IRC <https://web.libera.chat/?chan=#libreoffice-qa> or Telegram <https://t.me/LibreOffice_QA> to discuss. -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
[Libreoffice-qa] Weekly focus: needsComment
Hi all! Last week, we looked at SVG issues. Of the reports we listed, 69 have been touched by various contributors, including Kira, Sophie, Bogdan, Roland, Stéphane Q., Régis, Daniel, Timur, Ilmari, and others. Thank you all! This week, let's bring the number of bugs tagged "QA:needsComment" down. This tag means no one other than the person who opened the report has commented yet. These reports might need some essential clarification from the bug reporter (set the status to "NEEDINFO"), or might be straight away reproducible, or could even be marked as a duplicate of something already reported. More on this whiteboard value: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/GetInvolved#Unconfirmed_reports_without_comments At the time of writing, there are 160 reports left with this whiteboard value (down from 340 a year ago). Head to this list and pick one to triage, and make sure to remove the whiteboard value "QA:needsComment" when replying: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=1674173_format=advanced=---_whiteboard=QA%3AneedsComment_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=1674173_format=advanced=---_whiteboard=QA%3AneedsComment_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr> Feel free to use the QA pad for notes and sharing resources: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa Thanks for your contributions! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Weekly focus: SVG / We ducked below 1000 unconfirmed bugs
Hi Eyal * There are issues with the graphs on Bugzilla, with a big gap in logging stats between 2018 and 2020, as you've noticed (the seemingly linear increase). You can have a look at the QA Dashboard to see changes in that period, in the Timelines tab (with the caveat that pre-2017 data is not complete because a chunk of older data is shaved off the data dump). https://stragu.shinyapps.io/lo_qa_dashboard/ * Regarding the dramatic jump in 2020, that's likely the impact of many new "home offices" around the world during Covid restrictions. Lots of new users, so lots of new reports. * Finally, the triaging effort in July and August 2021 seems to be a collaborative effort. Looking at the weekly top 10 for bug confirmers for that time period, here's a selection: Ilmari Lauhakangas 233 Xisco Fauli 84 Roman Kuznetsov 64 Heiko Tietze41 Nabet, Julien 41 Faure, Jean-Baptiste31 Timur 25 BogdanB 24 Dieter 18 Raal18 Stéphane Guillou15 steve -_- 13 Andreas Heinisch10 NISZ LibreOffice Team 10 Eleonora Govallo8 This is obviously only partial, but gives you an idea of the biggest contributions. Ilmari was doing triaging live streams back then as well. When compared to the previous period of the same length, there was definitely a significant increase in number of changes made to reports, as well as in number of contributors. Hence as sharp decrease in unconfirmed bugs. Hope that helps! :) Cheers On 07/11/2023 16:01, Eyal Rozenberg wrote: I just had a look at the UNCONFIRMED_set chart on BugZilla: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/chart.cgi?category=LibreOffice=UNCONFIRMED_set=2919=2919=All=wrap=1100=350 so, congrats on getting below 1000, but the behavior of that graph is kind of weird: * Perfectly linear increase in UNCONFIRMED for about 2 years * Dramatic jump in 2020 and dramatic drop in 2021 I wonder if I can plot this chart alongside UNCOFIRMED bugs being created, so that we can plot how many UNCONFIRMED were handled per unit of time. Eyal On 07/11/2023 11:58, Stéphane Guillou wrote: Hi all! Last week, we kicked off a "Weekly Focus" with the topic of SVG, see the blog post for more information: https://qa.blog.documentfoundation.org/2023/10/30/qa-weekly-focus-svg/ We have made some progress on it, but if you want to keep contributing to reviewing reports, the list is still available on our pad: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa Please feel free to pick a report, put your name in front of it, and check if it is still current, missing some information, identified as a regression, or can be closed. Next Monday we'll continue with a new topic and hopefully get into a rhythm of one focus area per week, announced on the mailing list. Thanks everyone for your contributions – and last but not least: congratulations getting from 1850 unconfirmed bugs a year ago, down to below 1000 unconfirmed bugs! (The first time since July 2020.) -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
[Libreoffice-qa] Weekly focus: SVG / We ducked below 1000 unconfirmed bugs
Hi all! Last week, we kicked off a "Weekly Focus" with the topic of SVG, see the blog post for more information: https://qa.blog.documentfoundation.org/2023/10/30/qa-weekly-focus-svg/ We have made some progress on it, but if you want to keep contributing to reviewing reports, the list is still available on our pad: https://pad.documentfoundation.org/p/qa Please feel free to pick a report, put your name in front of it, and check if it is still current, missing some information, identified as a regression, or can be closed. Next Monday we'll continue with a new topic and hopefully get into a rhythm of one focus area per week, announced on the mailing list. Thanks everyone for your contributions – and last but not least: congratulations getting from 1850 unconfirmed bugs a year ago, down to below 1000 unconfirmed bugs! (The first time since July 2020.) -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email: stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web: https://stragu.gitlab.io/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] How to link a .so library
Hi Jingze, This is the Quality Assurance mailing list. For questions and answers, please use https://ask.libreoffice.org/ However, given that your question is about programming, you might get more answers on the dev mailing list: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice Thank you! On 19/06/2023 11:40, Jingze Xu wrote: Dear all, Hi, I'm new to libreoffice and its forum. I have a question but I am not sure where to ask. If this is the right place, here is the question :) - Question: I have successfully added a new dialog in Impress according to the steps in this tutorial - Development/Create new dialog in Impress - The Document Foundation Wiki <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Create_new_dialog_in_Impress>. Now I wish to call functions in an external library in the dialog source file. I have an external library *libxxx* containing some C++ header files and a .so file. I put the header files in include/ folder and .so file outside libreoffice directory. I include the header files of this library in dialog source files located in sd/source/ui/dlg. I rerun the autogen.sh with extra arguments, trying to let the build system know I have a .so library to link. ./autogen.sh LDFLAGS=-L/path_to_libxxx LIBS=-lxxx Then I rebuild the sd module using make sd, however, it seems the functions in .so library is not properly linked. "/usr/bin/ld: /home/jingze_xu/office/libreoffice-7.6.0.0.beta1/workdir/CxxObject/sd/source/ui/dlg/HelloDialog.o: in function `sd::SdHelloDialog::OKHdl(weld::Button&)': HelloDialog.cxx:(.text+0x36c): undefined reference to `Add_FileHeader(std::__cxx11::basic_stringstd::char_traits, std::allocator >, std::__cxx11::basic_string, std::allocator >, unsigned short)' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [/home/jingze_xu/office/libreoffice-7.6.0.0.beta1/sd/Library_sdui.mk:10: /home/jingze_xu/office/libreoffice-7.6.0.0.beta1/instdir/program/libsduilo.so] Error 1 make: *** [Makefile:121: sd] Error 2" Are there some clues about linking so library in libreoffice codebase? Thanks! - If this is not the right place to ask questions, I'm sorry about this and please tell me where to ask questions. Thanks! Best wishes, Jingze Xu -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Mobile (France): +33 7 79 67 18 72 Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
[Libreoffice-qa] Retiring MAB metas
Hi all We currently have 3 metas that use our deprecated, subjective concept of "most annoying bugs": * [META] Windows Installer Most Annoying Bugs - https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41884 * [META] Report Builder most annoying bugs - https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61723 * [META] LibreOffice for Android most annoying bugs - https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84726 I'd like to review and retire these ones doing the following: * Move their dependents to the obvious parent meta (if any: Android ones should use the dedicated Android components) * Review their importance if needed * Close the metas as "invalid" Any thoughts? I'd like suggestions on how to deal with closed reports: I want to also categorise closed reports properly for better stats, but I don't want to be unnecessarily noisy to subscribed contributors, especially for bugs that are long gone. How do we do a mass change as silently as possible? E.g. replacing one "blocks" value in many bugs in one go. Cheers -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Mobile (France): +33 7 79 67 18 72 Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 2 forms for bug reporting
On 9/11/22 10:35, Stéphane Guillou wrote: Hi all About reporting bugs for LO: we currently have two forms (that I know of) that people might land on. 1. Directly from Bugzilla: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice=guided 2. Linked from the Wiki: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice;bug_status=UNCONFIRMED;version=? The first one is the "guided" format, which is great for providing the important bits like steps, results, version info, etc. with extra explanatory text. But it doesn't allow directly adding extra fields and attachments. The second one doesn't have the broken down description that will be helpful to provide essential info, but it does allow directly adding an attachment and extra fields like keywords, URL, Blocks, See also... To me, the second one is only really good for more advanced users, and to reduce noise of successive edits. Newcomers should use the first one because it is clearer, it has plain text explanations that guide them, and it makes it less likely that they will use fields in the wrong way (and that they will find it too advanced for them). However, I believe the most important piece it is missing is the attachment field. I'm sure there's quite a few things we could do to improve the situation, but could we start with adding the Attachment field to the guided format so bug reporters are incentivised to provide testing files and avoid some back-and-forth? The form currently has the following text: /*IMPORTANT:*//In case you need to attach to the bug, Please use the "Add an Attachment" link once the bug is filled. / Is that because there was a limitation to add the attachment field? Cheers! Oh, and I forgot to mention another extremely important feature of the more detailed form: the *Possible duplicates *that appear below! That would save us a lot of time categorising duplicates. Would it also possible to add that to the new guided form? Cheers -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Mobile (France): +33 7 79 67 18 72 Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
[Libreoffice-qa] 2 forms for bug reporting
Hi all About reporting bugs for LO: we currently have two forms (that I know of) that people might land on. 1. Directly from Bugzilla: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice=guided 2. Linked from the Wiki: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice;bug_status=UNCONFIRMED;version=? The first one is the "guided" format, which is great for providing the important bits like steps, results, version info, etc. with extra explanatory text. But it doesn't allow directly adding extra fields and attachments. The second one doesn't have the broken down description that will be helpful to provide essential info, but it does allow directly adding an attachment and extra fields like keywords, URL, Blocks, See also... To me, the second one is only really good for more advanced users, and to reduce noise of successive edits. Newcomers should use the first one because it is clearer, it has plain text explanations that guide them, and it makes it less likely that they will use fields in the wrong way (and that they will find it too advanced for them). However, I believe the most important piece it is missing is the attachment field. I'm sure there's quite a few things we could do to improve the situation, but could we start with adding the Attachment field to the guided format so bug reporters are incentivised to provide testing files and avoid some back-and-forth? The form currently has the following text: /*IMPORTANT:*//In case you need to attach to the bug, Please use the "Add an Attachment" link once the bug is filled. / Is that because there was a limitation to add the attachment field? Cheers! -- Stéphane Guillou Quality Assurance Analyst | The Document Foundation Email:stephane.guil...@libreoffice.org Mobile (France): +33 7 79 67 18 72 Matrix: @stragu:matrix.org Fediverse: @str...@mastodon.indie.host Web:https://stragu.gitlab.io/
