QA verification of fixes in Launchpad is non-obvious and error-prone
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Launchpad itself |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
It is not obvious how a project should track verification of bug fixes in Launchpad. Projects that need this currently use tags, but this has multiple problems.
== What do people do currently? ==
Ubuntu QA team: <https:/
Canonical OEM services: <https:/
Launchpad: <https:/
Linaro?
== What's wrong with using tags? ==
* Can't see completeness of testing in a burndown chart.
* Not obvious what needs to happen next to a bug report.
* Lack of prominent process alarms OEM customers.
* Tags are too loose -- typos and no enforcement of mutual exclusivity.
* Can't see tags for each bug in a bug listing.
* Can't see the tag search terms in search results (bug 28697).
* Other projects can't easily understand or reuse an existing project's process.
== How could we solve those problems? ==
* We could add new "Fix Verified" and "Fix Failed" statuses.
+ would solve nearly all problems identified above with using tags
+ wouldn't add any more widgets to the page
+ cheap to implement
- bug statuses would be more complex even for projects that didn't need them
- ambiguity about whether end state is "Fix Verified" or "Fix Released"
- if it's "Fix Released", not obvious whether it's gone through QA
- if it's "Fix Verified", not obvious whether it's been released
- not obvious what should happen after a bug goes into Fix Failed
* We could introduce a "QA request" process, like merge proposals.
+ single request could cover multiple bugs, e.g. all bugs for a release
- a lot of work to implement
- not obvious how it would relate to bug statuses
* Verification (not/failed/passed) could be a standalone widget on the bug page.
+ cheap to implement
- not obvious how it would relate to bug statuses
* QA could be an example of delegation (temporary assignment), with bugs being delegated to a QA team or engineer for testing then returned for release.
(to be continued)
Changed in malone: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Low |
tags: | added: confusing-ui feature |
visibility: | private → public |
description: | updated |
summary: |
- Add a FixVerified and FixFailed bug status + QA verification of fixes in Launchpad is non-obvious and error-prone |
description: | updated |
description: | updated |
Why is using tags a suboptimal workaround?
When the fixes to bugs turn out not to work, bugs often get re-opened (that is, their status changes from Fixed Something to one that indicates that the bug needs work), so capturing the QA results using the status can be problematic for some projects.
I also think that being able to capture QA results using the bug tracker is very important.