You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to qa@openoffice.apache.org by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de> on 2014/03/08 12:59:31 UTC
4.1. Regressions
Hi all,
last weekend I wanted to check whether I can try to use 4.1 for my daily
work with acceptable risk. Using such a trunk version for normal work is
a much more manifold and reliable test than testing with prepared
testcases (what, of course, have to be done, too!).
I am used to do a query for regressions in trunk, what will allow to
check whether there are known 4.1 regressions affecting my daily work.
And fascinating, my query showed 1 Regression in 200 Bugs with Version
4.1 (I forgot what one it was). That sounds good, but it is completely
implausible that our 200 unfixed 4.1.0-dev DEFECT bugs all are about new
features. And that tells that information in Bugzilla database is
totally unreliable, not useful for such decisions.
I already started a review of Bugs in query [1]. Very often Version has
been changed erroneous from an older version to 4.1, sometimes
additionally I see reports with Status "Confirmed" what are no bugs at
all (Bug 106106, Bug 97818), or at least are very unclear (Bug 96263.
May be some volunteers can assist?
Best regards
Rainer
Hyperlinks:
[1]
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=130944&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
(shared with "canconfirm")
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
> how about the defects already have value in "QA Contact"
Hi,
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=133813&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest_woQA&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
Shows the possible regressions without someone in QA, only 5 found. Not
many left ...
Let's wait until 80 % of the big list have been proceeded, then we can
care about refining that ;-)
CU
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
> how about the defects already have value in "QA Contact"
Hi,
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=133813&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest_woQA&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
Shows the possible regressions without someone in QA, only 5 found. Not
many left ...
Let's wait until 80 % of the big list have been proceeded, then we can
care about refining that ;-)
CU
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Yuzhen Fan <fa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Rainer Bielefeld <
rainerbielefeld_ooo_qa@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote:
> Yuzhen Fan schrieb:
>
> Here is the analysis of possible cases
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> plausible description of the task, I'm more or less proceeding so.
>
>
> I will send you bug list for your review
>>
>
> Difficult - I currently prefer to check issues where I have knowledge
> first, not to proceed a list. Other volunteers might think similar. If you
> agree we can use my <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=
> runnamed&list_id=133742&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest> (or something
> similar?) for a while, I can add "Exclude issue numbers what have been
> checked and are no regressions after short mail here, rest fall out of the
> list one by one because they got keyword regression or more early version
> number or whatever.
>
> Hi, I cannot open your query above, it returns red warning, have you
shared it?
> Nevertheless, we should find proceedings what can increase efficiency
> by avoiding double work. May be some volunteers add themselves to "QA
> Contact" in bugs where they have skills and want to proceed them within a
> week or so?
>
Sounds good, but how about the defects already have value in "QA Contact"
(although I do not find one so far)?
>
> CU
>
> Rainer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Yu Zhen
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 3/19/14 9:58 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> and we need help of an an experienced MAC user for [1], it seems we have
> some MAC-Only issues in the list.
>
> CU
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
> Hyperlinks:
> [1]
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_severity=normal&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f1=keywords&f2=bug_id&f3=cf_bug_type&f4=op_sys&known_name=410_RegressionTest&list_id=133748&o1=notsubstring&o2=nowords&o3=equals&o4=regexp&query_based_on=410_RegressionTest&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=regression&v2=1000%20124211&v3=DEFECT&v4=^M&version=4.1.0-dev>
>
all on my radar more or less
Juergen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Hi,
and we need help of an an experienced MAC user for [1], it seems we have
some MAC-Only issues in the list.
CU
Rainer
Hyperlinks:
[1]
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_severity=normal&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f1=keywords&f2=bug_id&f3=cf_bug_type&f4=op_sys&known_name=410_RegressionTest&list_id=133748&o1=notsubstring&o2=nowords&o3=equals&o4=regexp&query_based_on=410_RegressionTest&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=regression&v2=1000%20124211&v3=DEFECT&v4=^M&version=4.1.0-dev>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Yuzhen Fan schrieb:
> Here is a batch of excluded
Hi,
thanks a lot, perfect work! A quick test query [2] showed 0 hits what
means that in affected bug reports all relevant fields have been
modified correctly so that the reports are no longer "possible
regressions" for the query "410_RegressionTest".
Best regards
Rainer
Hyperlinks:
[1]
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_severity=normal&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f1=keywords&f2=bug_id&f3=cf_bug_type&f4=bug_id&known_name=410_RegressionTest&list_id=137537&o1=notsubstring&o2=nowords&o3=equals&o4=anywordssubstr&query_based_on=410_RegressionTest&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=regression&v2=1000%20124211%20124422&v3=DEFECT&v4=121115%20118061%20117629%20114067%20111301%20109420%20123954%20124136%20120153%20124437%20124028%20123886&version=4.1.0-dev>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Yuzhen Fan <fa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rainer and all,
Here is a batch of excluded issue numbers what have been checked and are no
regressions, thanks Shao Zhi, Clarence and Steve for your checking!
No Description Most early version Regression in 4.1? New Issue
in 4.1? Checker
121115 Opening a CSV file with several OO windows already open causes
Text Import box to appear in unexpected location 3.4.1 N N
Shao Zhi
118061 values not taken into account by sum.if in linked spreadsheets
3.4.1 N N Shao Zhi
117629 comment arrow points wrongly 3.4.1 N N Shao Zhi
114067 Insert a line in a big calc file take a long time 3.4.1
N N Shao Zhi
111301 Calc: Text in cell is truncated when file is reopened
3.4.1 N N Shao Zhi
109420 financial function VDB returns incorrect values OOo 3.3 or
older N N Shao Zhi
123954 Can't identify Data formats in MS2010 when exporting .doc file
with "Date" field, 3.4.1 N N Yan Peng
124136 Graphics bullet list cannot be selected by clicking on graphic
bullets image OOo 3.3 or older N N Yan Peng
120153 Save xls format WITHOUT password creates a password protected
file, 4.0.1 N N Yan Peng
124437 Opening password protected files not possible, 4.1 (CLOSED
NOT_AN_ISSUE, ) N N Yin Bing
124028 Highlight of commented/annotated text range gets lost when export
as PDF, 4.1 (Enhacement) N Y Yin Bing
123886 Toolbars customization 'Cancel' does the same like 'OK' , OOo
3.3 or older N N Yin Bing
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Rainer Bielefeld <
rainerbielefeld_ooo_qa@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote:
> Yuzhen Fan schrieb:
>
> Here is the analysis of possible cases
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> plausible description of the task, I'm more or less proceeding so.
>
>
> I will send you bug list for your review
>>
>
> Difficult - I currently prefer to check issues where I have knowledge
> first, not to proceed a list. Other volunteers might think similar. If you
> agree we can use my <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=
> runnamed&list_id=133742&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest> (or something
> similar?) for a while, I can add "Exclude issue numbers what have been
> checked and are no regressions after short mail here, rest fall out of the
> list one by one because they got keyword regression or more early version
> number or whatever.
>
> Nevertheless, we should find proceedings what can increase efficiency
> by avoiding double work. May be some volunteers add themselves to "QA
> Contact" in bugs where they have skills and want to proceed them within a
> week or so?
>
> CU
>
> Rainer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Yu Zhen
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Hi,
and we need help of an an experienced MAC user for [1], it seems we have
some MAC-Only issues in the list.
CU
Rainer
Hyperlinks:
[1]
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_severity=normal&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f1=keywords&f2=bug_id&f3=cf_bug_type&f4=op_sys&known_name=410_RegressionTest&list_id=133748&o1=notsubstring&o2=nowords&o3=equals&o4=regexp&query_based_on=410_RegressionTest&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=regression&v2=1000%20124211&v3=DEFECT&v4=^M&version=4.1.0-dev>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Yuzhen Fan <fa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Rainer Bielefeld <
rainerbielefeld_ooo_qa@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote:
> Yuzhen Fan schrieb:
>
> Here is the analysis of possible cases
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> plausible description of the task, I'm more or less proceeding so.
>
>
> I will send you bug list for your review
>>
>
> Difficult - I currently prefer to check issues where I have knowledge
> first, not to proceed a list. Other volunteers might think similar. If you
> agree we can use my <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=
> runnamed&list_id=133742&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest> (or something
> similar?) for a while, I can add "Exclude issue numbers what have been
> checked and are no regressions after short mail here, rest fall out of the
> list one by one because they got keyword regression or more early version
> number or whatever.
>
> Hi, I cannot open your query above, it returns red warning, have you
shared it?
> Nevertheless, we should find proceedings what can increase efficiency
> by avoiding double work. May be some volunteers add themselves to "QA
> Contact" in bugs where they have skills and want to proceed them within a
> week or so?
>
Sounds good, but how about the defects already have value in "QA Contact"
(although I do not find one so far)?
>
> CU
>
> Rainer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Yu Zhen
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Yuzhen Fan schrieb:
> Here is the analysis of possible cases
Hi,
plausible description of the task, I'm more or less proceeding so.
> I will send you bug list for your review
Difficult - I currently prefer to check issues where I have knowledge
first, not to proceed a list. Other volunteers might think similar. If
you agree we can use my
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=133742&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest>
(or something similar?) for a while, I can add "Exclude issue numbers
what have been checked and are no regressions after short mail here,
rest fall out of the list one by one because they got keyword regression
or more early version number or whatever.
Nevertheless, we should find proceedings what can increase efficiency
by avoiding double work. May be some volunteers add themselves to "QA
Contact" in bugs where they have skills and want to proceed them within
a week or so?
CU
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Yuzhen Fan schrieb:
> Here is the analysis of possible cases
Hi,
plausible description of the task, I'm more or less proceeding so.
> I will send you bug list for your review
Difficult - I currently prefer to check issues where I have knowledge
first, not to proceed a list. Other volunteers might think similar. If
you agree we can use my
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=133742&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest>
(or something similar?) for a while, I can add "Exclude issue numbers
what have been checked and are no regressions after short mail here,
rest fall out of the list one by one because they got keyword regression
or more early version number or whatever.
Nevertheless, we should find proceedings what can increase efficiency
by avoiding double work. May be some volunteers add themselves to "QA
Contact" in bugs where they have skills and want to proceed them within
a week or so?
CU
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Yuzhen Fan <fa...@gmail.com>.
Here is the analysis of possible cases for bugs in query [1], together with
the proposed instructions to review them, any comments and suggestions,
please let me know.
1. New issue happens on new feature in 4.1, or migration issue only applies
to 4.1(e.g. *Issue
124437*<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124437>- Opening
password protected files not possible) - Leave the Version field to 4.1
2. New found issue being observed in 4.1 - Determine and refine the Version
field to version in which the issue occurs first
3. Regression issue works in 4.0.1 but breaks in 4.1 - Leave the Version
field to 4.1 and set the Keywords field to "regression", then specify the
comparison build and regression build clearly in Additional *C*omments field
Here, let's call for volunteers to assist:
1. Any one who can help on this, please send me your Bugzilla ID, I will
send you bug list for your review
2. Any one who has already started reviewing, could you please share and
book your bug IDs to avoid duplicated effort among us.
Hyperlinks:
[1] <
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=130944&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
(shared with "canconfirm")
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 3/11/14 6:33 PM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think Bugzilla Help
> > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi> tells it all.
> > There only is no common sense whether key word should be used also for
> > very old regressions (regression in OOo 1.0.1 compared to OOo 1.0.0),
> > from developer's point of view only regressions in AOO 3.4-dev and later
> > are of interest.
> > <https://www.mail-archive.com/qa@openoffice.apache.org/msg01787.html>
> >
> > Generally problems with newly integrated features can not be
> > regressions. But if the code of a newly integrated feature damages an
> > older function so that it does not work correctly since integration,
> > that damage deserves key word "regression".
> >
> > But I do not think that many regression key words will have to be added.
> > The problem with the Bugs in the list is that at least one of following
> > mistakes is in data for the Bugs:
> > * Version has been changed to 4.1 in error, example:
> > (Bug 105492 - Text Orientation Degrees Entry Field
> > * It has not been tested with what Version the
> > bug has appeared, example:
> > (Bug 124259 - mathvariant="normal" is ignored on import of .mml file)
> >
> > So far my personal thoughts, what are result of long co-working in open
> > source projects,
>
> communication is the key here. We have experienced QA volunteers who
> know how to set the fields and we have volunteers with less experience.
> I suggest that we clean up the various fields and update the how submit
> a bug page with a clear and updated explanation of what we think is best.
>
> If somebody is not sure it is best to let the fields unset or open and
> ask on the QA list for support/help.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> >
> > CU
> >
> > Rainer
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Yu Zhen
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Yuzhen Fan <fa...@gmail.com>.
Here is the analysis of possible cases for bugs in query [1], together with
the proposed instructions to review them, any comments and suggestions,
please let me know.
1. New issue happens on new feature in 4.1, or migration issue only applies
to 4.1(e.g. *Issue
124437*<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124437>- Opening
password protected files not possible) - Leave the Version field to 4.1
2. New found issue being observed in 4.1 - Determine and refine the Version
field to version in which the issue occurs first
3. Regression issue works in 4.0.1 but breaks in 4.1 - Leave the Version
field to 4.1 and set the Keywords field to "regression", then specify the
comparison build and regression build clearly in Additional *C*omments field
Here, let's call for volunteers to assist:
1. Any one who can help on this, please send me your Bugzilla ID, I will
send you bug list for your review
2. Any one who has already started reviewing, could you please share and
book your bug IDs to avoid duplicated effort among us.
Hyperlinks:
[1] <
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=130944&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
(shared with "canconfirm")
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 3/11/14 6:33 PM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think Bugzilla Help
> > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi> tells it all.
> > There only is no common sense whether key word should be used also for
> > very old regressions (regression in OOo 1.0.1 compared to OOo 1.0.0),
> > from developer's point of view only regressions in AOO 3.4-dev and later
> > are of interest.
> > <https://www.mail-archive.com/qa@openoffice.apache.org/msg01787.html>
> >
> > Generally problems with newly integrated features can not be
> > regressions. But if the code of a newly integrated feature damages an
> > older function so that it does not work correctly since integration,
> > that damage deserves key word "regression".
> >
> > But I do not think that many regression key words will have to be added.
> > The problem with the Bugs in the list is that at least one of following
> > mistakes is in data for the Bugs:
> > * Version has been changed to 4.1 in error, example:
> > (Bug 105492 - Text Orientation Degrees Entry Field
> > * It has not been tested with what Version the
> > bug has appeared, example:
> > (Bug 124259 - mathvariant="normal" is ignored on import of .mml file)
> >
> > So far my personal thoughts, what are result of long co-working in open
> > source projects,
>
> communication is the key here. We have experienced QA volunteers who
> know how to set the fields and we have volunteers with less experience.
> I suggest that we clean up the various fields and update the how submit
> a bug page with a clear and updated explanation of what we think is best.
>
> If somebody is not sure it is best to let the fields unset or open and
> ask on the QA list for support/help.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> >
> > CU
> >
> > Rainer
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Yu Zhen
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 3/11/14 6:33 PM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think Bugzilla Help
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi> tells it all.
> There only is no common sense whether key word should be used also for
> very old regressions (regression in OOo 1.0.1 compared to OOo 1.0.0),
> from developer's point of view only regressions in AOO 3.4-dev and later
> are of interest.
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/qa@openoffice.apache.org/msg01787.html>
>
> Generally problems with newly integrated features can not be
> regressions. But if the code of a newly integrated feature damages an
> older function so that it does not work correctly since integration,
> that damage deserves key word "regression".
>
> But I do not think that many regression key words will have to be added.
> The problem with the Bugs in the list is that at least one of following
> mistakes is in data for the Bugs:
> * Version has been changed to 4.1 in error, example:
> (Bug 105492 - Text Orientation Degrees Entry Field
> * It has not been tested with what Version the
> bug has appeared, example:
> (Bug 124259 - mathvariant="normal" is ignored on import of .mml file)
>
> So far my personal thoughts, what are result of long co-working in open
> source projects,
communication is the key here. We have experienced QA volunteers who
know how to set the fields and we have volunteers with less experience.
I suggest that we clean up the various fields and update the how submit
a bug page with a clear and updated explanation of what we think is best.
If somebody is not sure it is best to let the fields unset or open and
ask on the QA list for support/help.
Juergen
>
> CU
>
> Rainer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Hi,
I think Bugzilla Help
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi> tells it all.
There only is no common sense whether key word should be used also for
very old regressions (regression in OOo 1.0.1 compared to OOo 1.0.0),
from developer's point of view only regressions in AOO 3.4-dev and later
are of interest.
<https://www.mail-archive.com/qa@openoffice.apache.org/msg01787.html>
Generally problems with newly integrated features can not be
regressions. But if the code of a newly integrated feature damages an
older function so that it does not work correctly since integration,
that damage deserves key word "regression".
But I do not think that many regression key words will have to be added.
The problem with the Bugs in the list is that at least one of following
mistakes is in data for the Bugs:
* Version has been changed to 4.1 in error, example:
(Bug 105492 - Text Orientation Degrees Entry Field
* It has not been tested with what Version the
bug has appeared, example:
(Bug 124259 - mathvariant="normal" is ignored on import of .mml file)
So far my personal thoughts, what are result of long co-working in open
source projects,
CU
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Hi,
I think Bugzilla Help
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi> tells it all.
There only is no common sense whether key word should be used also for
very old regressions (regression in OOo 1.0.1 compared to OOo 1.0.0),
from developer's point of view only regressions in AOO 3.4-dev and later
are of interest.
<https://www.mail-archive.com/qa@openoffice.apache.org/msg01787.html>
Generally problems with newly integrated features can not be
regressions. But if the code of a newly integrated feature damages an
older function so that it does not work correctly since integration,
that damage deserves key word "regression".
But I do not think that many regression key words will have to be added.
The problem with the Bugs in the list is that at least one of following
mistakes is in data for the Bugs:
* Version has been changed to 4.1 in error, example:
(Bug 105492 - Text Orientation Degrees Entry Field
* It has not been tested with what Version the
bug has appeared, example:
(Bug 124259 - mathvariant="normal" is ignored on import of .mml file)
So far my personal thoughts, what are result of long co-working in open
source projects,
CU
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rainer Bielefeld <
rainerbielefeld_ooo_qa@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> last weekend I wanted to check whether I can try to use 4.1 for my daily
> work with acceptable risk. Using such a trunk version for normal work is a
> much more manifold and reliable test than testing with prepared testcases
> (what, of course, have to be done, too!).
>
> I am used to do a query for regressions in trunk, what will allow to check
> whether there are known 4.1 regressions affecting my daily work. And
> fascinating, my query showed 1 Regression in 200 Bugs with Version 4.1 (I
> forgot what one it was). That sounds good, but it is completely implausible
> that our 200 unfixed 4.1.0-dev DEFECT bugs all are about new features. And
> that tells that information in Bugzilla database is totally unreliable, not
> useful for such decisions.
>
> I already started a review of Bugs in query [1]. Very often Version has
> been changed erroneous from an older version to 4.1, sometimes additionally
> I see reports with Status "Confirmed" what are no bugs at all (Bug 106106,
> Bug 97818), or at least are very unclear (Bug 96263.
>
Given what you say in this above paragraph, do you have any suggestions on
how to "accurately" determine regression status? We may have to construct a
custom search using date, etc.
> May be some volunteers can assist?
>
> Best regards
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
>
> Hyperlinks:
> [1] <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
> list_id=130944&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
> (shared with "canconfirm")
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
-- James Mason
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Edwin Sharp <el...@mail-page.com>.
The oldest version where the bug occurs is more meaningful than the version the bug reporter used.
The bug history shows the bug reporters version.
More fields - more confusion.
IMHO current Bugzilla is good.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014, at 12:33, Pedro Lino wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I suggest that bugzilla should be improved to include two fields.
> The first is filled by the reporter (can be someone very unexperienced) and
> refers to the Version where the bug was observed.
> A second field (which is not even visible in the first filling form) named
> VersionFirst is automatically filled with the same version as Version and
> can be refined by QA.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> Pedro
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Tal Daniel <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [CCing QA, after just published to DEV]
> >
> > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote (Mar 10):
> >
> > > Changing entry of Field Version from an older version to a newer one
> > > should not happen.
> > > When a user submits a new issue the Field Version should contain the
> > > version on which the user observes the issue. Experienced community
> > > members, primarily by QA people, should refine the value, but only in the
> > > direction to older versions. Thus, finally the Field Version should
> > > document the version in which the issue occurs first.
> >
> >
> > I just saw this comment by Oliver, and as a reporter/user/translator, this
> > is new to me.
> > I'll update the guide with this instruction (
> > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/HowToFileIssue), and I hope Oliver
> > won't mind me quoting him.
> >
> > Please review the guide, and add/edit, or add a note in the Discussion of
> > the Wiki page.
> > Thanks.
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Tal Daniel <ta...@gmail.com>.
I've added a note on the Version field, in
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/HowToFileIssue, in the spirit of what
Oliver-Reiner wrote, Also, I notice another field in Bugzilla, which may
make this discussion obsolete: "Latest confirmation on".
This field isn't mentioned in the guide, so I'll point reporters to use
this field, instead of changing the [first] Version [noticed].
Maybe that's a recommendation for the Bugzilla OS project: to show these 2
fields (Version, Latest Confirmation on) close to each other, and make
clearer titles for the version field.
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Pedro Lino schrieb:
> I suggest that bugzilla should be improved to include two fields.
Hi,
for me the lack of reliability of Version information is a real problem,
but I share Edwin's concerns. I would prefer something like a query or
SQL query or similar showing bugs where Version has been changed to a
later one. My experience is that 99% of those changes are by mistake,
and with such a query it would be easy to check and correct that.
Alternatively a python script checking the mail archive to extract
comments with such changes might be sufficient.
Queries like this one [1] (what would allow an atom feed) are not very
promising.
CU
Rainer
Hyperlinks:
[1]
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=OP&f2=version&f3=version&f4=version&f7=CP&f8=version&j1=OR&list_id=136684&o2=changedfrom&o3=changedfrom&o4=changedfrom&o5=changedfrom&o8=regexp&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v2=3.4.0&v3=3.4.1&v4=OOo%203.3%20or%20older&v5=OOo%202.0.4&v8=^4>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Pedro Lino <pe...@gmail.com>.
Hi all
I suggest that bugzilla should be improved to include two fields.
The first is filled by the reporter (can be someone very unexperienced) and
refers to the Version where the bug was observed.
A second field (which is not even visible in the first filling form) named
VersionFirst is automatically filled with the same version as Version and
can be refined by QA.
Just my 2 cents.
Pedro
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Tal Daniel <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [CCing QA, after just published to DEV]
>
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote (Mar 10):
>
> > Changing entry of Field Version from an older version to a newer one
> > should not happen.
> > When a user submits a new issue the Field Version should contain the
> > version on which the user observes the issue. Experienced community
> > members, primarily by QA people, should refine the value, but only in the
> > direction to older versions. Thus, finally the Field Version should
> > document the version in which the issue occurs first.
>
>
> I just saw this comment by Oliver, and as a reporter/user/translator, this
> is new to me.
> I'll update the guide with this instruction (
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/HowToFileIssue), and I hope Oliver
> won't mind me quoting him.
>
> Please review the guide, and add/edit, or add a note in the Discussion of
> the Wiki page.
> Thanks.
>
Fwd: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Tal Daniel <ta...@gmail.com>.
[CCing QA, after just published to DEV]
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote (Mar 10):
> Changing entry of Field Version from an older version to a newer one
> should not happen.
> When a user submits a new issue the Field Version should contain the
> version on which the user observes the issue. Experienced community
> members, primarily by QA people, should refine the value, but only in the
> direction to older versions. Thus, finally the Field Version should
> document the version in which the issue occurs first.
I just saw this comment by Oliver, and as a reporter/user/translator, this
is new to me.
I'll update the guide with this instruction (
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/HowToFileIssue), and I hope Oliver
won't mind me quoting him.
Please review the guide, and add/edit, or add a note in the Discussion of
the Wiki page.
Thanks.
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Tal Daniel <ta...@gmail.com>.
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote (Mar 10):
> Changing entry of Field Version from an older version to a newer one
> should not happen.
> When a user submits a new issue the Field Version should contain the
> version on which the user observes the issue. Experienced community
> members, primarily by QA people, should refine the value, but only in the
> direction to older versions. Thus, finally the Field Version should
> document the version in which the issue occurs first.
I just saw this comment by Oliver, and as a reporter/user/translator, this
is new to me.
I'll update the guide with this instruction (
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/HowToFileIssue), and I hope Oliver
won't mind me quoting him.
Please review the guide, and add/edit, or add a note in the Discussion of
the Wiki page.
Thanks.
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On 08.03.2014 12:59, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> last weekend I wanted to check whether I can try to use 4.1 for my daily
> work with acceptable risk. Using such a trunk version for normal work is
> a much more manifold and reliable test than testing with prepared
> testcases (what, of course, have to be done, too!).
>
> I am used to do a query for regressions in trunk, what will allow to
> check whether there are known 4.1 regressions affecting my daily work.
> And fascinating, my query showed 1 Regression in 200 Bugs with Version
> 4.1 (I forgot what one it was). That sounds good, but it is completely
> implausible that our 200 unfixed 4.1.0-dev DEFECT bugs all are about new
> features. And that tells that information in Bugzilla database is
> totally unreliable, not useful for such decisions.
>
> I already started a review of Bugs in query [1]. Very often Version has
> been changed erroneous from an older version to 4.1, sometimes
> additionally I see reports with Status "Confirmed" what are no bugs at
> all (Bug 106106, Bug 97818), or at least are very unclear (Bug 96263.
>
Changing entry of Field Version from an older version to a newer one
should not happen.
When a user submits a new issue the Field Version should contain the
version on which the user observes the issue. Experienced community
members, primarily by QA people, should refine the value, but only in
the direction to older versions. Thus, finally the Field Version should
document the version in which the issue occurs first.
> May be some volunteers can assist?
I will try to provide accurate information for the issues which I
review. As I am concentrating on the development I do not think that I
am not planning a dedicated 'issue review round'.
Best regards, Oliver.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
>
> Hyperlinks:
> [1]
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=130944&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
> (shared with "canconfirm")
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.1. Regressions
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rainer Bielefeld <
rainerbielefeld_ooo_qa@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> last weekend I wanted to check whether I can try to use 4.1 for my daily
> work with acceptable risk. Using such a trunk version for normal work is a
> much more manifold and reliable test than testing with prepared testcases
> (what, of course, have to be done, too!).
>
> I am used to do a query for regressions in trunk, what will allow to check
> whether there are known 4.1 regressions affecting my daily work. And
> fascinating, my query showed 1 Regression in 200 Bugs with Version 4.1 (I
> forgot what one it was). That sounds good, but it is completely implausible
> that our 200 unfixed 4.1.0-dev DEFECT bugs all are about new features. And
> that tells that information in Bugzilla database is totally unreliable, not
> useful for such decisions.
>
> I already started a review of Bugs in query [1]. Very often Version has
> been changed erroneous from an older version to 4.1, sometimes additionally
> I see reports with Status "Confirmed" what are no bugs at all (Bug 106106,
> Bug 97818), or at least are very unclear (Bug 96263.
>
Given what you say in this above paragraph, do you have any suggestions on
how to "accurately" determine regression status? We may have to construct a
custom search using date, etc.
> May be some volunteers can assist?
>
> Best regards
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
>
> Hyperlinks:
> [1] <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
> list_id=130944&namedcmd=410_RegressionTest&remaction=run&sharer_id=8583>
> (shared with "canconfirm")
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
-- James Mason