openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: Some thoughts on quality
Date Thu, 15 Aug 2013 09:14:00 GMT
On 8/14/13 8:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, janI <> wrote:
>> On 14 August 2013 19:36, Edwin Sharp <> wrote:
>>> Dear Rob
>>> The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
>>> Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates
>>> should not be avoided.
>>> TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage)
>>> and more stress testing oriented.
>>> Regards,
>>> Edwin
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 19:59, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> We're working now on AOO 4.0.1, to fix defects in AOO 4.0.0.  The fact
>>>> that we're doing this, and their are no arguments against it, shows
>>>> that we value quality.   I'd like to take this a step further, and see
>>>> what we can learn from the defects in AOO 4.0.0 and what we can do
>>>> going forward to improve.
>>>> Quality, in the end, is a process, not a state of grace.  We improve
>>>> by working smarter, not working harder.  The goal should be to learn
>>>> and improve, as individuals and as a community.
>>>> Every regression that made it into 4.0.0 was added there by a
>>>> programmer.  And the defect went undetected by testers.  This is not
>>>> to blame.  It just means that we're all human.  We know that.  We all
>>>> make mistakes.  I make mistakes.  A quality process is not about
>>>> becoming perfect, but about acknowledging that we make mistakes and
>>>> that certain formal and informal practices are needed to prevent and
>>>> detect these mistakes.
>>>> But enough about generalities.  I'm hoping you'll join with me in
>>>> examining the 32 confirmed 4.0.0 regression defects and answering a
>>>> few questions:
>>>> 1) What caused the bug?   What was the "root cause"?  Note:
>>>> "programmer error" is not really a cause.  We should ask what caused
>>>> the error.
>>>> 2) What can we do to prevent bugs like this from being checked in?
>>>> 3) Why wasn't the bug found during testing?  Was it not covered by any
>>>> existing test case?  Was a test case run but the defect was not
>>>> recognized?  Was the defect introduced into the software after the
>>>> tests had already been executed?
>>>> 4) What can we do to ensure that bugs like this are caught during
>>> testing?
>>>> So 2 basic questions -- what went wrong and how can we prevent it in
>>>> the future, looked at from perspective of programmers and testers.  If
>>>> we can keep these questions in mind, and try to answer them, we may be
>>>> able to find some patterns that can lead to some process changes for
>>>> AOO 4.1.
>>>> You can find the 4.0.0 regressions in Bugzilla here:
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Rob
>> I strongly believe that one of the things that went wrong is our limited
>> possibility to retest (due to resources), when I look at our current manual
> I wonder about that as well.  That's one reason it would be good to
> know how many of the confirmed regressions were introduced late in the
> release process, and thus missed coverage in our full test pass.
>> testcases, a lot of those could be automated, e.g. with a simple UI macro,
>> that would enable us to run these test cases with every build. It may sound
>> like a dream but where I come from, we did that every night, and it caught
>> a lot of regression bugs and sideeffects.
> This begs the question:  Is the functionality of the regressions
> covered by our test cases?  Or are they covered but we didn't execute
> them?  Or we executed them but didn't recognize the defect?  I don't
> know (yet).
>> A simple start, if to request that every bug fix, is issued with at least
>> one test case (automated or manual).
> Often there is, though this information lives in Bugzilla.  One thing
> we did on another (non open source) project is to mark defects in our
> bugtracking system that should become test cases.   Not every bug did
> that.  For example, a defect report to update a mispelling in the UI
> would not lead to a new test case.  But many would.

we have the automated test framework that needs some more attention and
polishing. And of course the tests have to improved to get satisfying

We have

BVT - build verification test
FVT - functional verification test
PVT - performance verification test
SVT - system verification test

But I have to confess that I have limited knowledge about it yet


> Regards,
> -Rob
>> rgds
>> jan I.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message