Kopete Test Plan

[Christian Loose]

On Thursday 22 September 2005 20:05, Geoff Huang wrote:
> Thanks for your response.  I'm surprised by the lack
> of comments from others, however, given the length of
> the previous thread.  I'd really like to see KDE
> projects (well, all projects) follow this methodology.
>  I strongly believe in repeatability of testing.  If
> there's no baseline for comparison, how can we ever
> gauge if quality improves or degrades?

I'm sorry, but I'm very busy ATM because I'm going on vacation on saturday. 
That's why I could only take a very short look at your test plan.

So far it looks very promising. You might want to contact the kopete 
maintainers. I'm sure they are willing and able to give you more comments on 
it.

I will take a deeper look when I'm back.

Bye, Christian

PS: BTW on mailing lists, it's better to put the reply at the bottom.


> --- Görkem Çetin <gorkem at gorkemcetin.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Geoff Huang wrote:
> > >Hi there,
> > >
> > >About a month ago, there was some discussion on
> >
> > this
> >
> > >list about regressions, quality, and test
> >
> > procedures
> >
> > >for KDE.  The thread appears here:
> >
> >http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-quality/2005-August/001644.html
> >
> > >In August, I'd volunteered to write up a test plan,
> > >demonstrating how I think regression testing should
> > >proceed.  I'm nearly complete with a UI test plan
> >
> > for
> >
> > >Kopete, which is at
> >
> >http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=KopeteTestPlan.
> >
> >
> >
> > A structured test plan looks neat and also has
> > the feature that any tester can fill in the blanks
> > and a quality controller can see whether a test
> > is omitted or not. Moreover, you can also link
> > a test bug to a Bugzilla entry and subsequent
> > tests can smash the bugs, if any.
> >
> > One plan I've derived by looking at other tests
> > of Mozilla, Sun and (..one more well known IT
> > company..) and modified according to needs
> > can be seen from
> > http://bugs.uludag.org.tr/show_bug.cgi?id=313
> > (3rd attachment - "kalite testi üçüncü sürüm"
> > is the latest). It's in line with your Wiki
> > counterpart.
> > However, it tests a desktop environment,
> > divided by subsections (installation, desktop,
> > openoffice.org, networking, printer system etc).
> > Thus, every subsection has a task list which
> > should be tested individually.
> >
> > Just FYI.
> >
> > >There was previously discussion about how
> >
> > automation
> >
> > >of UI tests is unfeasible, given lack of free UI
> > >automation tools.  I don't know anything about
> >
> > this,
> >
> > >so I can't comment to this, but generally I would
> > >encourage as much automation as possible.
> >
> > Is anyone on the list experienced with UI automation
> > tools? Which one(s) have you used and got satisfying
> > results?
> >
> > Best
> > Görkem
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kde-quality mailing list
> > kde-quality at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-quality
>
> _______________________________________________
> kde-quality mailing list
> kde-quality at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-quality