;
ext-mark.halma...@nokia.com; niko.m.rantalai...@nokia.com; meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
It seems to me that by the definitions that Jari just pointed out, a not
implemented feature would be listed as blocked with the comment of "not
implemented":
"B
ent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:51 AM
> To: jake.kunn...@nokia.com; anssi.ta...@nokia.com; EXT-
> mark.halma...@nokia.com; niko.m.rantalai...@nokia.com; meego-
> q...@meego.com
> Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
>
> We were having discussion earlier around this an
@meego.com
Subject: RE: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi,
My "understanding" on TC verdict is this:
'PASS' - When the test case passes
'FAIL' - When the test case fails, e.g. feature not working or feature not
implemented
'N/A' - When QA cannot
...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of ext
jake.kunn...@nokia.com
Sent: 05 January 2011 14:36
To: Takku Anssi (Nokia-MS/Tampere); Halmagiu Mark (EXT-Digia/Finland);
Rantalainen Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere); meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi,
My "understanding" on TC verdi
riginal Message-
From: meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com
[mailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of Takku Anssi
(Nokia-MS/Tampere)
Sent: 05 January, 2011 13:32
To: Halmagiu Mark (EXT-Digia/Finland); Rantalainen Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere);
meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA v
ailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of Halmagiu Mark
(EXT-Digia/Finland) Sent: 05 January, 2011 13:10 To: Rantalainen
Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere); meego...@meego.com Subject: Re:
[Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi
I'd like to make some comments about this, both from a theoretical
and from a pr
: Rantalainen Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere); meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi
I'd like to make some comments about this, both from a theoretical and
from a practical point of view.
To us, a specific version of MeeGo represents a set of features.
Specifically, MeeGo 1.2 repre
ubject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi
I'd like to make some comments about this, both from a theoretical and
from a practical point of view.
To us, a specific version of MeeGo represents a set of features.
Specifically, MeeGo 1.2 represents the features marked for 1.2 (and
earlier) in
explanations about failed
> cases are not noticed)
>
>
>
> So, I propose that we continue using old definitions.
>
>
>
> ~Anssi
>
>
>
> From:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com
> [mailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of ext
> jake.kunn...@noki
@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of ext anssi.ta...@nokia.com
Sent: 05 January, 2011 11:12
To: Kunnari Jake (Nokia-MS/Helsinki); Pronin Jakov (EXT-Ixonos/Estonia);
Rantalainen Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere); meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
I personally don't like the idea
Subject: RE: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
And about N/A, in this case is it : Not Applicable or Not Available?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/n/a
br
Jake
From: meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com
[mailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of Pronin Jakov
(EXT-Ixonos/Estonia)
Sent
...@meego.com
Subject: RE: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
I personally don't like the idea of marking not implemented features to
failed. Why:
- In agile development we actually don't know what are the features
that will be implemented (ok, we have some wishlist of features for 1
ext
jake.kunn...@nokia.com
Sent: 05 January, 2011 10:24
To: Pronin Jakov (EXT-Ixonos/Estonia); Rantalainen Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere);
meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi,
>From a testing point-of-view: When feature is not implemented = test is
>failing and v
(Nokia-MS/Tampere); meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi,
We think it would be better to leave verdicts as they are:
Pass = When QA can verify that tested feature works as expected.
This is OK with us.
Fail = When QA can verify that tested feature does not work as
:02
To: Rantalainen Niko.M (Nokia-MS/Tampere); meego...@meego.com
Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi,
We think it would be better to leave verdicts as they are:
Pass = When QA can verify that tested feature works as expected.
This is OK with us.
Fail = When QA can verify that tested featur
o.com
[mailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of ext
niko.m.rantalai...@nokia.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:12 PM
To: meego...@meego.com
Subject: [Meego-qa] QA verdict rules.
Hi,
There has been separate discussions about test case result verdicts and how
QA gives them. When ca
Hi,
There has been separate discussions about test case result verdicts and how QA
gives them. When case is pass, when fail, when N/A etc. These verdict rules
should be aligned trough QA and rules should be simple for everyone to
understand (test execution and audience looking reports). So, wa
17 matches
Mail list logo
