<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
In a previous position where I also used Bugzilla, the solution that
we came up with was simply to add a new custom field to Bugzilla,
which I think might have had the label "Test Status".<br>
<br>
That field was implemented as a drop-down, and the possible values
were something like the following:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>Blank (default)</li>
<li>Test needed</li>
<li>Test not needed<br>
</li>
<li>Test created</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
The idea was that whoever RESOLVED the bug was responsible for
setting the "Test Status" flag, and then whoever was responsible
for adding tests for the (Product + Component) in question could
monitor the "Test needed" items via a saved search. <br>
</p>
<p>Once the test was in place, the status was changed to "Test
created" and (if the tester was a Good Person), a comment was
added to the bug with a link to any relevant test automation,
manual test cases, etc.<br>
</p>
<p>Our workflow included the extra step of changing the bug status
from RESOLVED to CLOSED when the test(s) were created, but I don't
think we use the CLOSED status in the WMF's Bugzilla instance.<br>
</p>
<p>It's not an elegant solution, but it's very lightweight and it
worked well enough.<br>
</p>
<p>- Jeff<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/15/14, 2:25 PM, Greg Grossmeier
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140115222527.GA5255@x200s" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Observation 1:
We have test-writing related keywords in Bugzilla:
* need-integration-test
* need-parsertest
* need-unittest
Obvservation 2:
Without hard data to back up my claim, I feel like a large number of
bugs reported are fixed but do not also include a test to the
functionality. I might just be missing them. I don't think I am (at
least always); I think they just aren't created. That's kind of the
standard way of developing, right? ;)
Suggestion:
We use some kind of way of tracking this. Maybe not every bug fix needs
an associated test, but I'd like to believe it is more than the
ridiculously low percentage number that we are doing now. We might not
use all of those current keywords (maybe just "needs-test" and let the
dev team/QA person on point for that team figure it out). We can figure
that part out later.
Thoughts?
Is this too cumbersome? Does anyone have experience with trying to
accomplish something similar with a different group of engineers (both
"dev" and "QA", where/if those are separate roles). We don't really have
the bandwidth to start this in earnest right now, but should we start
mulling it over?
Greg
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>