Fedora 13 QA Retrospective

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Introduction

This page is intended to gather feedback from the Fedora QA community on things that worked well and things that could have been better with the testing of Fedora 13. The feedback will be used as a basis for identifying areas for improvement for Fedora 14 testing. Any thoughts, big or small, are valuable. If someone already provided feedback similar to what you'd like to add, don't worry ... add your thoughts regardless.

For any questions or concerns, send mail to test@lists.fedoraproject.org.

Providing feedback

Adding feedback is fairly straight forward. If you already have a Fedora account ...

  1. Login to the wiki
  2. Select [Edit] for the appropriate section below.
  3. Add your feedback using the format:
    * ~~~ - I like ____ about the new ____ process
  4. When done, Submit your changes

Otherwise, if you do not have a Fedora account, follow the instructions below ...

  1. Select the appropriate page for your feedback...
  2. Add your feedback using the format:
    * ~~~ - I like ____ about the new ____ process
  3. When done, Submit your changes

Feedback

Things that went well

Could have been better

Wishlist

Recommendations

After enough time has been given for feedback, the QA team will discuss and make recommendations on changes to prioritize for Fedora 14. This section organizes and lists the recommendations.

In order to coordinate efforts, and measure effectiveness of recommendations, please record and track any action taken in the Fedora 14 roadmap in the QA TRAC instance.

Release Criteria

  1. Create Fedora 14 Criteria Pages - fedora-qa ticket#77
    Create new wiki pages for Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria, Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria, and Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria
  2. Add firstboot release criteria - fedora-qa ticket#79
    Release Criteria - The release criteria do not include what Package-x-generic-16.pngfirstboot modules are intended for Fedora. Often, firstboot some modules are missing or disabled, and we don't notice or know whether this is a blocker. Recommend clarifying the use cases of firstboot in the release criteria.
  3. Add dual-boot criteria - fedora-qa ticket#80
    The user experience of dual-boot scenarios was not well understood, as a result RHBZ #590661 did not clearly impact the release criteria. Recommend reviewing and making adjustments to the release criteria for dual-boot expectations.
  4. Add i18n criteria - fedora-qa ticket#81
    i18n from installer to login - Recommend reviewing the release criteria to ensure expectations are captured around propagating language and keymap settings from install to desktop login (/etc/sysconfig/i18n, Package-x-generic-16.pnggdm etc...).

Release Validation

  1. Update existing dual-boot tests and add to test plan - fedora-qa ticket#82
    Recommend updating existing dual-boot test cases to reflect criteria, and adding to the install matrix (depends on #590661)
  2. Coordination with i18n team on installer test coverage - fedora-qa ticket#83
    Lang/Keymap Selection - RHBZ #571900 pointed out the need for a better understanding of how the language and keymap installer selections impact the installed system. Recommend reviewing methods for incorporating l18n verification into existing test plans, or coordinating with the I18N team.
  3. Define install test run baseline - fedora-qa ticket#84
    F-13 Beta candidate#3 didn't include the correct version of Package-x-generic-16.pngplymouth (see RHBZ #578633). Since it was Beta#3 and not much was supposed to change from Beta#2, some test results from the previous Beta#2 candidate were carried forward. Thankfully, QA found the problem before release while running the QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install test.
    Establish better guidelines about which test results can be carried forward from one candidate to the next (this isn't easy). Or perhaps, establish a subset of tests that all respins must undergo.
  4. Clarify use of Test Priority in test matrix - fedora-qa ticket#85
    There was some confusing around the priority listed in the install and desktop test matrices. Recommend clarifying that the priority listed is the test execution priority. It does not always mean that a failure identified by those tests will block the applicable release.
  5. Recommend adding text-mode upgrade test to install matrix - fedora-qa ticket#86
    Some tests in the install test matrix involve user interface components in both text-mode and graphical-mode (native or VNC). One such bug (RHBZ #590823) involved a problem found only during text-mode upgrades to Fedora 13. I'm hesitant to recommend specific text-mode tests for each user interface element that differs in text-mode and graphical-mode (it would be exhaustive but unachievable). Testing a text-mode install is included in the current matrix. Is there something small that can be done to cover the gap? Recommend adding a text-mode upgrade test case to the install matrix.
  6. Organize install tests by install use cases/scenarios - fedora-qa ticket#76
    The current install test matrix, by design, tests many different choices the user can make during an install. In most cases, the tests are not specific about the order of choices. There were several bugs in Fedora 13 that involved a specific ordering of the tests (see RHBZ #590640). Recommend investigation and reorganization of the install test matrix to better map to install use cases. The tests that are important for a particular use case, need to be tested against that use case.
  7. Improve test engagement with other desktop communities - fedora-qa ticket#87
    Results were often not available for non-GNOME desktop. Recommend looking for opportunities to improve communication between teams and increasing non-GNOME desktop testing leading up to milestones.
  8. Improve test instructions - fedora-qa ticket#73
    Some install tests are showing there age and do not provide clear and consistent test instructions.
  9. Remove duplicate tests - fedora-qa ticket#72
    Review and remove tests which are duplicates of existing tests in the matrix (e.g. RAID0, RAID1, RAID5, RAID6, RAID10 are all not needed).
  10. Test basic video driver install - fedora-qa ticket#88
    There are no tests to confirm expected behavior when booting the live image or installer using the second boot option Install system with basic video driver.
    1. Recommend updating QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Graphical, or creating a new test case, that confirms expected behavior when booting Install system with basic video driver. This test will need to be run against traditional media (CD, DVD and boot.iso) and Live media.
    2. Recommend adding a Live image boot option for Boot with basic video driver

Test Days

  1. Limit the scope test days - Create fedora-qa ticket
    If another Virtualization test day is intended, recommend focusing on 2 (or fewer) features, or planning for a Virt Test Week.
  2. Test week - Create fedora-qa ticket
    If a large amount of testing is needed, too large for just a single day, recommend splitting the event across multiple days. Much like the Xorg-x11-drv graphics events.
    The Xorg test week was well organized and communicated, perhaps repeating this for Fedora 14 would be ideal.
  3. Avoid schedule conflicts and public holidays - Create fedora-qa ticket
    ABRT did not have strong participation, likely due to scheduling the event over the Easter holiday. QA should be mindful of public holidays that might lead to lower attendance for any scheduled test days.
    Update QA/SOP_Test_Day_management#Set_a_date with a caution about public holidays.
  4. Choosing good test day topics - Create fedora-qa ticket
    Test Days focused on specific limited availability hardware (iBFT, iSCSI, RAID, multipath) are not well attended by general test community. Unclear if strong user communities (possibly outside Fedora) exist around these features.
    Recommend updating the test day QA/SOP_Test_Day_management,or create a new wiki page, that provides some guidance on choosing a good test day topic.

Blocker Review

  1. Monitor all MODIFIED Blocker bugs - Create fedora-qa ticket
    During Fedora 13, QA did not track MODIFIED bugs during blocker review meetings. On the lead up to the Final release, several MODIFIED blocker bugs were not fixed. To honor the existing release criteria (All bugs blocking the F13Blocker tracker must be CLOSED), QA needs to also keep track of MODIFIED blocker bugs.
    1. QA needs to keep track of MODIFIED Blocker bugs and ensure they are tested and moved to VERIFIED.
  2. Improve tracking blocker review status - fedora-qa ticket#89
    In F-13, a bugzilla keyword was used to denote blocker status. However, aside from reviewing bugzilla comments, there was no query-able method to determine whether a blocker request is open, approved or denied. This led to several Fedora 13 bugs that were 1) fixed in Rawhide, 2) Moved to MODIFIED or CLOSED and not included, but not included in Fedora 13 (e.g. RHBZ #505189 and RHBZ #577803).
    Not knowing which bugs were already reviewed, also introduced time wasted reviewing previously reviewed bugs during blocker review meetings. Recommend reviewing process changes to avoid the scenarios leading up to RHBZ #505189 and RHBZ #577803. Some options discussed so far include 1) using bugzilla flags (suggested by jkeating) to track blocker requests or 2) hardening the current keyword-based mechanism.
    1. Generate exception report and generate action plan for CLOSED Blocker bugs that did not go through VERIFIED.
    2. More frequent nag mails leading up to release milestones. Notification of NEW or ASSIGNED bugs goes to the maintainer, and MODIFIED bugs goes to QA.
  3. Blocker nag mails - fedora-qa ticket#90
    During the lead up to F-13-RC, numerous reminder emails were sent to test@ and devel@ mailing lists noting the number and state of remaining blocker bugs. It is felt that, along with developer time of course, the attention to the blocker list contributed to the resolution of 67 blocker bugs from 2010-04-30 to 2010-05-06.
    1. Recommend more frequent blocker status emails leading up to each major milestone. Unclear who should be responsible for sending these mails, QA, rel-eng or program mgmt?
    2. Update QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting with blocker meeting queries or python-bugzilla commands and where to send the mails (developers bcc'd?)
    3. Stretch goal - add email announcements to the Fedora 14 schedule.

Process

  1. Propagating schedule slips
    When F-13-Alpha release was slipped by 1 week, despite previous discussion around the expected course of action, QA agreed to not propagate the slip to the rest of the schedule. This was a mistake and contributed to missing early F-13-Beta milestones and eventually slipping the F-13-Beta release by 1 week.
    Recommend that any schedule slips carry forward into the schedule.
  2. Update BugStatusWorkFlow to include VERIFIED state - fedora-qa ticket#91
    Bodhi is responsible for closing bugs now, QA should use the VERIFIED state to note when a bug has been tested and confirmed fixed in an updated package available through bodhi.
    Recommend use of VERIFIED state to note when a bug has been tested and confirmed fix. This includes updating BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#VERIFIED.2C_FAILS_QA.2C_RELEASE_PENDING to reflect the use of the VERIFIED bugzilla state.
  3. Define and establish proventesters process - fedora-qa ticket#92
    With Critical Path Packages defined and requiring bodhi karma to enter the release, we need to define and build community participation in the process of accepting updates into Fedora.
    Recommend defining the process for joining, outlining member responsibilities and documenting test instructions or guidelines. We need to invite more participants to qualifying Critical Path Packages
  4. Reward key testers - fedora-qa ticket#93
    During Fedora 13, pfrields was able to secure funding to reward several key QA contributors.
    1. Recommend requesting and securing QA budget to reward key contributors
    2. Recommend researching reward options (maxamillion has discussed t-shirt ideas with the design team)

Test Automation

  1. Automate package update acceptance - See package update, resultdb, virtualization and depcheck milestones.
    Complete tasks needed to automate the QA:Package_Update_Acceptance_Test_Plan.
    See TRAC milestones depcheck, package update tests, package sanity and resultsdb.
  2. Automate basic installation tests - See autoqa install roadmap
    Continuing install automation work lead by Liam
    Goal to have mediakit tests scripted and a subset of automated installs. See milestone.
  3. Integrate automated storage testing - autoqa ticket#194
    Incorporate the automated storage test tool developed by clumens into AutoQA.

Communication

  1. Increase casual tester engagement - Create fedora-qa ticket
    Look for opportunities to better engage casual tester in test runs (desktop and install). We have a lot of testers reporting feedback on the mailing list, is there a way to better incorporate the feedback into wiki test runs/results?
  2. Earlier test day announcements - Create fedora-qa ticket
    Recommend that Test Days be announced (planet, test-announce, forums etc..) earlier. While it's difficult to announce a test day when the test day wiki content isn't available, we need to announce the events much earlier.
  3. How to debug - Create fedora-qa ticket
    We have a lot of smart people that find and debug problems on a regular basis. I recommend improving the Category:Debugging content by creating a SOP for debugging a problem (recommended by User:wwoods). This SOP would guide readers through the common steps of isolating a problem.

Infrastructure

  1. Always available live images - fedora-infrastructure ticket#2158
    In Fedora 13 (and 12), we found live image related issues too late. One contributing factor was that due to packaging bugs, live images were not available for test for long periods of time. Having a live images available for test as much as possible is important. Kevin currently maintains this process. Recommend working with Kevin to look for ways to ensure that there is always a live image available for test (aka last known built).

Release Engineering

  1. Delta-ISOs - rel-eng ticket#3575
    QA contributor Andre Robatino builds, provides and the process of creating Delta ISO images for all Fedora test milestones. These images are used by several key QA contributors who have low bandwidth, including rhe, liam, kparal, robatino.
    Recommend moving delta-ISO generation into the compose process, or giving Andre access to internal systems to create delta-ISO images.
  2. Creating ISO TRAC tickets earlier - rel-eng ticket#3838
    Using TRAC milestones was extremely helpful to keep on top of ISO availability for each milestone. Unfortunately for F-13-Beta and F-13-RC, the tickets were not created until on or after the date of the deliverable.
    Recommend creating the TRAC tickets for a milestone much earlier in the release.
  3. Keeping ISO TRAC tickets up-to-date - Create rel-eng ticket
    Tickets were not always kept updated with current status
    Is there anything QA can do to improve communication here?
  4. Research new rel-eng test - Create fedora-qa ticket
    Investigate test opportunity with release engineering to validate that the content included on a mediakit (DVD, CD, live image) is expected (see RHBZ #578633)

References