Reply on:
I think QA should do some exploratory testing of major new features as
time allows, but just verifying existing test cases that often are
running automatically anyhow isn't a good use of time, I guess.
Response:
QA is mostly doing that already. We try to cover as much as possible
Reply on:
I think QA should do some exploratory testing of major new features as
time allows, but just verifying existing test cases that often are
running automatically anyhow isn't a good use of time, I guess.
Response:
QA is mostly doing that already. We try to cover as much as possible i
Reply on:
How are we planning to test this? We have seen bugs in obscure web
sites which use the name of a new DOM property for example, but it seems
to me like there is no easy way for somebody to verify that adding such
a property doesn't break any popular website, even, since sometimes the
bug
On 8/12/12 5:51 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
I think QA should do some exploratory testing of major new features as
time allows, but just verifying existing test cases that often are
running automatically anyhow isn't a good use of time, I guess.
This is something that I think could very much be h
On 2012-08-13 21:08:04 +, Geo Mealer said:
Instead I'd define (formally or otherwise) three tiers:
1) Critical fixes. These need verification + additional testing.
2) Untested uncritical fixes. These have no automated tests. These
should get verification if time allows.
3) Tested critical
On 2012-08-10 20:41:30 +, Anthony Hughes said:
I, for one, support this idea in the hypothetical form. I'd like to get
various peoples' perspectives on this issue (not just QA).
Like Robert says elsewhere, manually running a testcase that's already
in automation doesn't make a huge amoun
lla.org
>
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:40:15 PM
>
> Subject: Fwd: Verification Culture
>
>
>
> I started this discussion on dev-quality[1] but there has been some
> suggestion that the dev-planning list is more appropriate so I'm moving the
> discussion
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:51:43 AM UTC-7, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Jason Smith schrieb:
>
> > Note - I still think it's useful for a QA driver to look through a set
>
> > of bugs fixed for a certain Firefox release, it's just the process would
>
> > be re-purposed for flagging a bug for needing
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Anthony Hughes wrote:
I'm commenting only from the point of view of developing Web-exposed
features into Gecko. I don't have sufficient experience to comment on
QA practices as they relate to Firefox UI development, etc.
> Does verifying as many fixes as we do r
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
> * Flagging of a risky patch needing to be sure it works - This is
>where doing a deep dive generally by formulating a test plan and
>executing it is useful.
This suggestion reminds me of the fact that members of the JS team
occasional
Jason Smith schrieb:
Note - I still think it's useful for a QA driver to look through a set
of bugs fixed for a certain Firefox release, it's just the process would
be re-purposed for flagging a bug for needing more extensive testing for
X purpose (e.g. web compatibility).
I think QA should do
On 12-08-10 5:04 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Let's try posting this again. Disregard the comments I put on the other
thread.
I think this is a good time to re-think our process for testing for
something that is fixed or not fixed. I think a better approach that
maybe we need to consider
To: "dev-planning"
Cc: dev-qual...@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:40:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Verification Culture
I started this discussion on dev-quality[1] but there has been some suggestion that the
dev-planning list is more appropriate so I'm moving the discuss
Sorry, this should have went to dev-platform...
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Hughes"
To: "dev-planning"
Cc: dev-qual...@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:40:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Verification Culture
I started this discussion on dev-quality[1
14 matches
Mail list logo
