[Libreoffice-qa] about moztrap attachment missing :(

[Thomas Hackert]

Hello Yifan, *,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:01:21PM +0800, Yifan Jiang wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 07:38:39PM +0100, Thomas Hackert wrote:
> > > Of course, I saw your previous discussion as well.
> > 
> > which one? The one on the Germanophone discuss ML?
> 
> hehe, I meant I saw your active discussion in the mailing list at
> de.libreoffice.org.

O.K.

> My point was we do not assign the permission
> blindly to people who have never had relevant work before, which may
> cause unexpected trouble.

Understandable ... ;)

> So demonstrated contribution is a good
> reason to make us to assign Moztrap managing permission and I believe
> you are the right person :)

Thanks :)

> > > Please be aware to let the mailing list know if you want to revise
> > Which ML? This one?
> 
> Yes, the libreoffice-qa mailing list will be the ideal place.

O.K. Then I will look for a good newsreader for the commandline the next
days ... ;)

> > Oh, I just want to translate existing ones to German ... ;) Maybe
> > correct some existing ones (when I find a missing attachment, spelling
> > mistakes or so ... ;)
> 
> Cool, this is even more easy to do than to add case. With your account
> login, find the interesting case in:
> 
>     http://manual-test.libreoffice.org/manage/cases/

Done ... ;)

> Then click the pencil icon at the head part of the test case line, you
> will jump to edting page. Find the section of German, and you can
> translate the cases there.

Oh, I have found it yesterday, after I logged it to find out, what has
changed with my changed role ... ;) But I will only find the time to
read further to the Moztrap User and/or Admin Guide next WE ... :( And
then maybe a little bit translation, too ... ;)

> By default you are in "version 0" automatically, more about version is
> explained as below.

O.K.

> > What about
> > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Moztrap/Moztrap_Admin_Guide? Your
> > linked site seems a little bit too developish to me (when it starts with
> > "REST API") ... :(
> 
> Yes, it makes sense if you want to do translate existed cases
> only. Plus these pages give an overview of how we are exactly using
> Moztrap for Libreoffice test cases management.

O.K.

> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Test_Case
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Test_Cases_Organization

Oh boy ... I cannot escape the feeling, that I will spend most of the
Easter days reading documentation and the like instead of translating
test cases ... :(

> > What does "Version 0" mean? Is this the same as "4.0" from LO?
> 
> Version 0 is a special version we defined in Moztrap as a *base*
> version for every other versions. Other versions should be consistent
> with the target LO version that we are gonna test.

Hm ... Does this "base version" relate to the version of the test case?

Say: If I write a new test case e.g. for Base (no pun intended ... ;) ),
then this would be version 0 (or base version) of this test? And other
versions would be an enhancement to this test? Or a translation? Or ...
?

Or do I get you wrong here?

> To be in more clear explanation, VERSION is a Moztrap specific concept
> distinguishing a test case content from different versions, by the

Maybe I am little bit confused by all this "versions" (or my English is
too bad or so ... ;) ), but what do you mean with "from different
versions" here? Different versions of LO? Different versions of the test
case?

> fact, though unusually, we may have different test case instructions
> for the same test topic.

I fear so ... ;)

> When we create a test run for testing, we have to specify a VERSION,
> which means exactly only the cases in that VERSION will be shown in
> the target test run.

O.K. I think (after logging in Moztrap and clicking through the different
menus ... ;) ), I am understanding it now (I hope ... ;) ):

1. You write the test, which is not LO version specific.
2. Moztrap will assign version 0 to it.
3. After saving the test and clicking on "Editing $Name of the test" you
can assign it as an new test (does this the "+1 (add this version)"
mean?) or to any existing test case (now only 3.6 and 4.0 are available
in the menu).

Am I right? If not, please correct me ... ;)

> Namely, we may have the same set test cases in different test
> runs. However, thanks to the VERSION feature, these test cases set can
> be in different wording because they are actually independent in
> content.

O.K.

> All the above reveals the VERSION importance when we managing test
> cases. Moztrap has a solution for how to correctly manage versions. I
> am not gonna be verbose here,

Not ;? I think, you are verbose (but in a positive way) ... ;)

> but the reason we want to at least
> update everything generic in "Version 0" is we want a consistent case
> version management. As a result:
> 
>     - we have a community "agreement" that each case's Version 0 is
>       the latest edited version of the test case

Why do you put "agreement" in quotation marks? Is it not an official
agreement?

>     - every new version is "branched" from Version 0, so that they can
>       include the latest update of the test cases

But how do you "branch" it?

> This is the way how we are gonna manage versions in a cooperative
> way. More details can be found in the headache documents above :)

Just out of curiosity: When I start translating a test, would it keep
the version number 0 or would it become version 1 then?

> Just in case, in practice, the 'version' operation of a test case can
> be found on the right top corner when you edit a case like:
> 
>     http://manual-test.libreoffice.org/manage/caseversion/419/

O.K.

> > >     later versions, so that all the versions of the test case would
> > >     have the new test case included. 
> > >   
> > > Any questions please do not hesitate to ask :)
> > 
> > As only a simple user, who just want to translate the test cases, I find
> > this information too much ... :( Do I really know all this stuff?
> 
> No, it is not necessary to read through everything before start
> working, but it makes sense to understand what will be changed or
> influenced by your revising :) To this aspect, the documents are good
> references.

"Sigh" ... O.K., then I will spend my next WE with reading Moztrap
documentation ... ;)

> > > > And I miss a function to skip tests in Moztrap ... :( Is it possible to
> > > > implement it?
> > > 
> > > Sorry I did not notice features like that. How does that work as?
> > > Would you specify a little bit more.
> > 
> > When I logged in to run the test, the first one was the test to install
> > the Korean Langpack and do some tests with it. As I am not a Korean nor
> > able to read or write it, I would like to see a button "Skip Test" as
> > there are only buttons for "Pass Test" and "Fail Step". I am there to
> > test the Germanophone version of LO, not the Korean nor Japanese nor ...
> > ;) And maybe there are test cases not fitting my OS, architecture or the
> > like. And then I would like to be able to skip a test instead of click
> > on "Fail Step" ... ;)
> > Something as it was in the old OOo TCM ... ;)
> 
> Hehe, not necessarily mark to skip. If you do not test it, simply
> leave it there alone.

O.K.

> Actually you simply need to mark pass/fail/invalid what you have done.

O.K. I thought there would be a possibility to get to the next test
instead of scrolling down and clicking on the next arrow in front of the
next test ... ;)

> Leave other uninteresting cases for other people who may be interested
> in them. That is to say, other people can see which cases have been
> executed by you, and vice versa :)

Would this be NL specific or would I see all testers?

> > Thank you for your information and have a nice evening
> 
> Thank you for your comments and questions :) They help out to refine
> the documentation. Please let me know if you find anything obsolete or
> unclear in wiki page.

I will do it ... ;) But maybe my questions help you to clear them in the
Wiki ... ;)
Have a nice evening
Thomas.

-- 
A pat on the back is only a few centimeters from a kick in the pants.