[QA] bugzilla and needs-test

[Andre Klapper]

On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:25 -0800, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> Observation 1:
> We have test-writing related keywords in Bugzilla:
> * need-integration-test
> * need-parsertest
> * need-unittest

Having three test-writing related keywords in Bugzilla makes me feel
lost (are parser tests no unit tests?). So I never set these keywords
and I have no idea who has the "expertise"/judgement to set them or
remove them, and at which state of a bug report (filing? closing?).

It seems like both Dev and QA are supposed to look at these keywords.

In reply to Jeff Hall:
Custom field in Bugzilla: We could do that, but it requires making
developers aware and making them actually set that field when resolving
a ticket. Plus social convention how to use it (but we also completely
miss that currently so we need that anyway).
I don't know if acceptance/use would be more successful - certainly the
field would be more visible (at least in the current Bugzilla 4.2 UI)
than current "I have to manually enter a keyword whose name I need to
know beforehand".

In reply to Chris McMahon:
> * We have here conflated whole worlds of dev processes into a 
> couple of Bugzilla tags without any context.

+1

> A tag "need-unittest" should be renamed "code
> needs refactoring/rewrite"-- it's the same thing.

If anybody sees a ticket about ugly (but working) code, feel free to
mark it as blocking meta bug 700 ("Code quality") please.


So... do we lose important meta information / differentiation for people
looking for tickets with one of the keywords only) if we merged these
three keywords into "needs-test"? (I don't yet plan to do that, but:
Keep it simple and stupid if possible.)

andre
-- 
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/