test February 2012

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

88 participants
285 discussions

[Fedora QA] #263: Expand Xen test case set
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#263: Expand Xen test case set ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- After checking with the Xen experts on list, it became clear that it would be a good idea to somewhat improve and extend our set of Xen test cases: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-November/104654.html Konrad Wilk summarizes: "It would be nice to expand the tests, and it kind of boils down to: 1) Does it boot 2) Does it work The complexity is that there are three modes of this: HVM (so similar to the KVM test-case), PV (we got that covered now), and the Dom0 (which is mostly - does it boot and you kind of implicitly need to do this before you can do the other two). So I think it makes sense to add the HVM case in the test-matrix - it is pretty simple and similar to the KVM one. The dom0 is a bit more complex, but we already have it outlined in the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 in the Documentation part - so it should be fairly easy to lift it out of there. (adn the stuff about the bridge is not needed anymore)." If someone with knowledge of the area could take this ticket and draft up the set of proposed test cases then mail them to the list for discussion, that would be great. Thanks! -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/263> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

[Fedora QA] #82: Update existing dual-boot tests and add to test plan
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#82: Update existing dual-boot tests and add to test plan ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=590661 RHBZ#590661 - GRUB bootloader should have a few seconds delay on a multi- boot setup] = analysis = Due to RHBZ #590661, the dual-boot experience was not well understood and tested for the final release. It was discovered late and unclear whether this behavior was critical to Fedora success. = enhancement recommendation = Recommend updating existing dual-boot test cases, and create new test as needed, to reflect updated dual-boot release criteria. Also, add tests to the install matrix (depends on ticket#80). The current tests concern dual-booting windows and Mac. I believe Mac is no longer a primary concern. However, we may wish to add a test for dual- booting Ubuntu or even Fedora. See existing dual-boot tests at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Installer_Dual_Boot_Test_Cases -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/82> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 7

[Fedora QA] #259: Review Fedora 17 feature list and co-ordinate with owners of significant features to create test plans
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#259: Review Fedora 17 feature list and co-ordinate with owners of significant features to create test plans ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- We should have someone responsible for reviewing the Fedora 17 feature list and ensuring a good test plan is in place for any significant and potentially disruptive feature. This ticket is for the general process of reviewing the entire feature list; whoever does this may well choose to create separate tickets for the test plans for specific features. If you're interested in working on this, please feel free to assign the ticket to yourself. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/259> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #256: Add EFI data to installation / base results matrices
by fedora-badges 08 Jun '12

08 Jun '12

#256: Add EFI data to installation / base results matrices -------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: efi retrospective | -------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- It would be nice if we could explicitly include EFI install test results in the installation matrix. Right now we just have the efidisk.img test case, which is kind of outdated: we don't just have a 'special' EFI boot disk any more, EFI support is integrated into all images. I'm not yet sure of the best way to lay this out, but I think we need to capture: * result of a straight-through DVD install booted via EFI * result of a straight-through live CD install booted via EFI * result of a straight-through live-image-written-to-USB-by-livecd-iso-to- disk install booted via EFI * result of a straight-through DVD-image-written-to-USB-by-l-i-t-d install booted via EFI * result of preupgrading an EFI install * result of DVD upgrading an EFI install I think other test cases don't necessarily need to be done both BIOS and EFI, but we probably need at least the above results. One way to do this would be to add an "EFI" column to the installation and base results matrices, and only provide boxes in that column for the test cases that cover the above features. But that's just one idea; there may be a better way. This should be completed in time for F17 Alpha, as EFI boot is considered Alpha-critical for F17. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/256> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 5

[Fedora QA] #260: Cover USB-written images better in installation validation testing
by fedora-badges 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

#260: Cover USB-written images better in installation validation testing ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- It became clear in the Fedora 16 cycle that use of Fedora images (both live and non-live) written to USB sticks is now extensive, and our current installation validation tests don't really test this method very comprehensively. We should extend the installation validation matrix to cover at least boot and installation in the following situations: * Live image written to USB stick using livecd-iso-to-disk * Live image written to USB stick using liveusb-creator * Live image written to USB stick using dd * Non-live image written to USB stick using livecd-iso-to-disk * Non-live image written to USB stick using dd We may want to consider different l-i-t-d parameters also (especially the use or non-use of --format could be significant). We could also cover use of unetbootin as an _informational_ (non-blocking) test, but I'm not super sure about that. Part of this ticket is deciding on the best way to represent this - whether it's by simply creating new test cases and adding them into the matrix, or somehow re-rendering the matrix to cover these cases as 'variants' of existing test cases, or some other method. The changes from this ticket and https://fedorahosted.org/fedora- qa/ticket/256 should be co-ordinated (possibly handled by the same person or group) as they both involve similar questions of how to revise the matrix to cover more situations. This should be completed by Fedora 17 Alpha TC1. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/260> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 9

Criterion proposal - keyboard layouts
by drago01 18 May '12

18 May '12

We currently don't have any explicit criterion that mandates that keyboard layouts choose in the installer should work in the installed system. As a maintainer of one of the packages involved there (system-setup-keyboard) I see such bugs in basically every release, during the development cycle. We should pay more attention to such issues as a system that uses a different keyboard layout as the one physically present can not only be very annoying (we shouldn't release in that state) but can be useless when you have special characters in your password(s). (Can't easily decrypt / login). As seen in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-March/097859.html we do currently have a paragraph that mentions this but is IMO way to vague. So I propose something like: "The keyboard layout selected in the installer must be in use after rebooting the installer (plymouth and X)".

4 10

[Fedora QA] #271: L10N and i18n Test Day
by fedora-badges 18 Apr '12

18 Apr '12

#271: L10N and i18n Test Day ----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: aalam | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------------ for localized and i18n testing, need two test days (including anaconda/installation) testing. Fedora 16 has test week. We can contiune with test week [https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/222], After Software Translation Deadline (2012-03-13), it will be helpful for testing desktop. Proposed Days:2012-03-22 or 2012-03-29 Some i18n Feaure in Fedora 17: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Inscript2_Keymaps https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/I18N/Meetings/2011-12-22 -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/271> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 22

New criterion for updates.img using
by Petr Schindler 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

I propose new beta criterion: "The installer must be able to use updates.img obtained by any supported way" I think, that this should be at criteria too. There are test cases which uses this feature - [1], [2] [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_updates.img_via_install… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_updates.img_via_local_m…

3 8

GNOME shell broken after suspend and resume for driver r300_dri
by Christoph Frieben 01 Apr '12

01 Apr '12

Can anybody report success for the suspend and resume cycle triggered from within the GNOME shell when the graphics card is based on some R300/R400 variant? In my case, the shell is still broken after resume. The video device is some ATI Radeon X800 card which is using the R420 chip. Only a black desktop, a mouse pointer and the GNOME panel are visible after resume. The desktop is not completely frozen since I am still able to move the mouse pointer. It is also possible to switch to a VT in order to reboot the system. Thanks, ~C PS: The F15 development cycle is nearing completion, and in my opinion, this is a major usability issue.

3 7

[Fedora QA] #270: Proposed Test Day - Sugar Desktop
by fedora-badges 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

#270: Proposed Test Day - Sugar Desktop -----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: greenfeld | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------+------------------------ The Sugar (www.sugarlabs.org) desktop is being ported to GTK3. Early versions of this code already are in Rawhide, and the final version is expected to land in Fedora 17. We therefore think it would be a good idea to schedule a test day for Sugar and the SoaS Fedora Spin during the Fedora 17 time frame. March 22 is probably best, although other open test days in March will work as well. For reference, the schedule for Sugar 0.95/0.96 may be found at http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/0.96/Roadmap -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/270> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
29
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test February 2012