Currently QA is managing manual tests execution in different platforms using the tool Practitest, which is not free. Those manual tests are for example executed to decide if the core should be promoted to candidate.
I would like to discuss either if we should cotinue using that tool or if would be a better idea move that to an open source alternative or do something else.
I was making a fast research and found this page which describes different open source alternative that could help.
For example there are among others tools:
- Tarantula Agile Test Management Tool
I’ll continue making that evaluation in order to provide more information about the different alternatives.
We also have our own checkbox / plainbox that is free software and has extensive experience inside Canonical. We could use it to describe manual testing of any kind and I bet someone could come up with a trivial web-app that lets one do them over the web.
Good alternative, my only concern about it is that’s not web based.
@cachio I really hope we can keep the number of manual tests as low as possible, ideally 0. IMO if we need a tool for managing them that would be a bad sign For now, if we could get the textual description of the current manual tests on QATeam/UbuntuCoreReleaseProcess - Ubuntu Wiki that would be great.
@fgimenez Agree on that, we should keep it as low as possible.
I’ll attach a pdf to the wiki once iti allow me to edit that page.
The manual tests for console conf are already attached in the wiki. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/UbuntuCoreReleaseProcess?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=report_console-conf_2017_04_12.pdf
@fgimenez @cachio I agree that the we should drive the number of manual tests as close to zero as possible, and we should always be cognisant that automated is better than manual, but realistically we will carry manual tests for some time. If we need a tool to manage these until they are phased out or if some other means is sufficient, that is fine but lets ensure that the process, whether it be automated or manual, is clearly defined in a step-by-step manner so that anyone can repeat the process and get the same results.
I fully agree with @JamieBennett
There’s a reason we have both autopilot and two pilots at the helm
@JamieBennett Agree with you, and the idea of having a free test management tool is basically for that reason, currently just some people are able to carry out these tests activities, the ones who have paid users in practitest, and the idea is that anyone should be able to do that.
About the test process, we are already collaborating and adding more information in the wiki page that Federico mentioned.