This page is likely outdated (last edited on 13 Aug 2008). Visit the new documentation for updated content.
Accessibility: QA Meetings 2008 Aug 13
10:15 <bgmerrell> are either of you familiar with the term “smoke test?” 10:15 <calen> have any adjustment? 10:16 <ray> do i need a cigarette? joking :P 10:16 <bgmerrell> hehe 10:16 <calen> i hear that, but i don’t know how to do 10:16 <ray> does it means stress test? 10:16 <bgmerrell> okay,… first of all.. 10:16 <calen> heard 10:16 <bgmerrell> from Wikipedia “Smoke testing is done by developers before the build is released or by testers before accepting a build for further testing.” 10:17 <bgmerrell> we will do the second part, i.e., QA will perform a smoke test before accepting a build for further testing. 10:18 <bgmerrell> it’s like a sanity test. 10:18 <bgmerrell> the idea will be for one of us to validate that new build and/or RPMs are not broken 10:19 <bgmerrell> and that we can all test effectively with the new RPMs before we all try to download and use them 10:19 <bgmerrell> does that make sense? 10:19 <calen> bgmerrell: yes 10:19 <ray> yes 10:19 <ray> actually, calen already did it :) 10:19 <calen> bgmerrell: that is what i had said in our test plan befor i think:) 10:19 <bgmerrell> excellent :) 10:20 <calen> ray: not exactly :) 10:20 <bgmerrell> calen: do we have any winforms tests that are 100% finished and not waiting for some bug? 10:20 <calen> bgmerrell: no 10:20 <bgmerrell> okay, i didn’t think so 10:21 <bgmerrell> when we do, we will want to make sure it is added to the test suite (tests.py) 10:21 <bgmerrell> then we can start doing our smoke tests 10:22 <bgmerrell> then we will designate one person to download the newest RPMs and update a wiki page to inform others if they should update or not 10:22 <calen> bgmerrell: do you mean use our strongwind test code to do smoke tests 10:22 <calen> ? 10:23 <bgmerrell> calen: for now yes, if they start to take too long, maybe we will have a smoke-tests.py to perform only a few tests 10:23 <bgmerrell> instead of tests.py which will have all the tests 10:23 <ray> calen, i think bgmerrell means we could download the rpms which is newly built, and install them to see if there are some prolbems 10:24 <bgmerrell> ray: right, but to see if there are some problems we can use our strongwind tests 10:24 <ray> ah , o k 10:24 <bgmerrell> if the most/all of the tests fail, when they were successful before, we know there are problems :) 10:24 <bgmerrell> calen: does that sound okay? or did you have a different idea? 10:25 <calen> bgmerrell: but my idea is if we should check if all patches which <decriptor> want to build into have been included, and all rpms can be install the first, than run our test 10:25 <bgmerrell> calen: yeah, sounds perfect 10:25 <calen> then to make sure new rpms is ready 10:27 <bgmerrell> How would we “check if all patches which <decriptor> want to build into have been included?” 10:29 <calen> i think it need decriptor give us a list 10:30 * ray is looking for some details about smoke test 10:30 <calen> and extra rpms to give a diff :) 10:31 <calen> i don’t know if it can be done like that \^\^ 10:32 <bgmerrell> http://build1.sled.lab.novell.com/uia/ has previous rpms 10:32 <bgmerrell> if we know the revision numbers that were used to create the RPMs we can look at the ChangeLog differences 10:32 <calen> sorry, i mean get patches from rpms 10:32 <ray> i got it, smoke test is something like sanity check, then people could do the next 10:33 <bgmerrell> ray: right, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_test#Smoke_testing_in_software_development 10:34 <calen> that is name “?????” in china. hehe 10:36 <calen> bgmerrell: sorry, there is no way to check out patches from rpm :( 10:37 <calen> how can we know new patch has been include into rpm? 10:38 <ray> bgmerrell, so when we install new rpms and no one is broken, then we can test in strongwind? 10:38 <bgmerrell> calen: the only thing we can do is look at the changelog 10:38 <bgmerrell> decriptor would have to do the same thing 10:39 <bgmerrell> changelogs* 10:39 <ray> calen, i think best way is to see the rpm’s changelog or revision 10:41 <calen> according changelogs to run samples which has been mentioned in changelogs, then run our strongwind test? 10:41 <bgmerrell> i’m trying to think about the changelogs.. because there will be a lot of changelogs to look at 10:42 <bgmerrell> i think our bugs will be the best indicators 10:42 <calen> because sometimes some control’s application cann’t be invoked after update the rpms 10:42 <ray> bgmerrell, what about to see the rpms’s changelog , 10:42 <bgmerrell> ray: where is that? 10:43 <ray> rpm -q –changelog, do we talk about the one thing ? :) 10:43 <ray> rpm -qp –changelog xxx.rpm 10:44 <bgmerrell> let me download the new RPMs 10:45 <calen> there is no changelog by use rpm -qp –changelog ***.rpm now 10:46 <bgmerrell> okay 10:46 <bgmerrell> I will talk to jared and decriptor about this 10:46 <bgmerrell> and see what we can do 10:46 <bgmerrell> we don’t have to solve it now 10:46 <calen> it return (none), maybe descriptor will add it ?? 10:47 <bgmerrell> the problem is we have lots and lots of rpms 10:47 <bgmerrell> I think the best thing to do would be to have the builders add a comment to a bug when its patch has been built 10:48 <bgmerrell> does that sound reasonable? 10:48 <bgmerrell> i think that is how other teams do it 10:48 <bgmerrell> but i will need to discuss that with jared and stephen 10:49 <calen> but they also would add something new except for bugs 10:50 <bgmerrell> yes, true, but is it necessary to monitor *everything* in each rpm? 10:50 <bgmerrell> the wiki pages are supposed to abstract that for us so we can see the progress 10:53 <bgmerrell> i don’t think it is necessary, but maybe i’m dumb :) 10:53 <calen> i still have problem:( i think the best way is from builder, because just builder have the exactly idea which has been build 10:54 <bgmerrell> i don’t know anything about building.. does he know exactly what is being built? 10:54 <bgmerrell> maybe ray knows 10:54 <calen> if a developer make ‘done’ for one control or one bridge, but builder never include, we also can’t do test for it 10:56 <bgmerrell> but the builds are created at each revision automatically 10:56 <ray> when devs commited the code, svn will add a revision number, then the build machine will build all the source code i think 10:56 <bgmerrell> so any code that is checked it *should* be built 10:56 <calen> oh..that make sense 10:57 <bgmerrell> so maybe the developers just adding the revision number when they mark a bugged as fixed will be good enough 10:57 <bgmerrell> and we can make sure that revision is built 10:57 <bgmerrell> does that sound okay? 10:57 <calen> great 10:57 <bgmerrell> okay awesome, i will talk to knocte about that 10:58 <bgmerrell> but i also wanted to talk about who should do the smoke tests… 10:59 <bgmerrell> i think ray is a good candidate because he is also involved with the builds so he can troubleshoot any problems that are build related 10:59 <ray> no problem 10:59 <bgmerrell> and also he will allow the full-time QA people (calen and I) to focus on testing 11:00 <bgmerrell> what do you think 11:00 <bgmerrell> Calen? 11:00 <calen> agree 11:00 <bgmerrell> great 11:00 <ray> so when rpms updated, i download all of them, install them to see if there are some broken one? or how to do that ? 11:00 <calen> before i join novell, builder do this job in my before company… 11:01 <calen> then he give our QA a test list..hehe 11:01 <bgmerrell> calen: cool, on my previous team the QA automation team did it 11:02 <ray> hehe, you work for Dale? 11:03 <bgmerrell> ray: yeah.. when rpms are updated, you will (1) install them and make sure they all install properly (2) run the smoke tests using the test harness 11:03 <bgmerrell> for now the smoke tests will just be tests.py, but that might change 11:03 <calen> because builder should check all of the patches has been commit. sometimes developer say they have commit a patch in bugzilla but actuality they lost 11:03 <bgmerrell> but we don’t have any tests ready yet 11:04 <bgmerrell> ray: yeah, he was me previous boss :) 11:04 <ray> bgmerrell, just run tests.py 11:04 <ray> just run that script ? 11:04 <bgmerrell> ray: well, you will run local_run.py or remote_run.py, which rely on tests.py 11:05 <bgmerrell> ray: do you have extra test/lab machines in china? 11:05 <ray> yeah, i think i can use my desktop :) 11:05 <calen> bgmerrell: yes, after they fix app closing issue, we can add form test into tests.py 11:06 <bgmerrell> it would be good to run a test on each platform 11:06 <bgmerrell> suse, ubuntu, and fedora.. but maybe we lack hardware 11:06 <bgmerrell> you could run them in Provo and view the logs 11:07 <ray> bgmerrell, for now, we only have suse package from monobuild :) 11:08 <bgmerrell> ray: right, but for the future 11:08 <ray> bgmerrell, oh exactly 11:08 <bgmerrell> ray: maybe in the future i will set up smoke test vms in provo 11:08 <bgmerrell> and you can just run your tests and look at the logs 11:09 <ray> bgmerrell, no matter, i have those VM installed :) , i can test them for now :) 11:09 <bgmerrell> for now you can just make sure the RPMs install, and you can just check to make sure some of the controls that are marked “done” appear in Accerciser 11:10 <ray> ok 11:10 <ray> that’s clear 11:10 <bgmerrell> but hopefully Calen’s form test can be put into tests.py soon! 11:10 <calen> hehe..i hope 11:10 <ray> nice :) 11:11 <bgmerrell> ray: then you can just send out an e-mail to the mailing list 11:11 <bgmerrell> ray: Smoke tests pass! | Smoke tests fail! :) 11:11 <calen> it can’t be run but can’t be exited 11:12 <bgmerrell> yeah, so ray could even run it manually if he wanted 11:12 <bgmerrell> when do you both go back to the office? 11:12 <ray> ah, sound interesting :) 11:12 <calen> Aug.26 11:13 <bgmerrell> calen: do you understand how local_run.py and remote_run.py work? 11:13 <ray> 25 i guess 11:13 <calen> 25, yeah 11:13 <ray> oops, from 25th, we have hack week 11:13 <calen> bgmerrell: i think i understand 11:13 <bgmerrell> calen: have you tried running remote_run.py before? 11:14 <calen> bgmerrell: i just have tried one or two times 11:14 <bgmerrell> calen: cool :) maybe you can show ray how they work when you get back to the office 11:15 <calen> bgmerrell: np :) 11:21 <bgmerrell> ray: so when you see an e-mail from stephen you can try to do smoke tests immediately, depending on the time of day of course :) 11:22 <ray> bgmerrell, sure 11:26 <calen> i have sent test howto to ray, it would be more helpful to him yet 11:26 <bgmerrell> it looks like the developers are already adding the revision number to comments when they fix the bugs 11:26 <bgmerrell> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=412206 11:27 <bgmerrell> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411345 11:27 <bgmerrell> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416602 11:27 <calen> yeah..i noticed it 11:27 <bgmerrell> so we can just make sure those revisions are built if we need to 11:27 <ray> yep 11:27 <bgmerrell> calen: great, thanks calen (for sending test howto to ray) 11:31 <bgmerrell> i forgot 11:31 <bgmerrell> one more thing 11:31 <bgmerrell> i already talked to Calvin about this, but i don’t think we will use testopia 11:31 <bgmerrell> testopia is used to track test cases 11:32 <ray> oh due to we have svn ? 11:32 <calen> yeah 11:32 <bgmerrell> but i think we can consider each of our test scripts as test cases 11:32 <bgmerrell> what do you think calen? 11:32 <calen> i agree 11:32 <bgmerrell> i think testopia will create too much “overhead”–additional work 11:32 <bgmerrell> okay, awesome. 11:33 <bgmerrell> we will need to update our test plan accordingly 11:33 <bgmerrell> i can do that