Talk:Quality Assurance/Weekly goals

Previous page history was archived for backup purposes at Talk:Quality Assurance/Weekly goals/LQT Archive 1 on 2015-07-10.

We propose testing these new features for Article feedback the week of Feb. 4.

Testing plan to follow if that proposed slot is accepted.

Thanks for your consideration!

In principle sounds good. The week starting on Feb 4 is initially dedicated to a Fresh bugs activity, but we can adapt.

One possibility is to have the Features testing activity with the involvement of the EE team, and then we could still keep a parallel bug triaging activity going through all the bugs opened for Article Feedback (hundred-something, plus the ones that might come with the testing).

This post was posted by Qgil-WMF, but signed as Qgil.

I'd be happy to test and clean some AFT bugs. There is quite some cruft. This will require documentation for AFT testers, so we don't waste time on retesting/reporducing bug reports where things do not work just because functionality has been **intentionally** undeployed, as tests and configurations have changed in the meantime. In exactly this context, Matthias Mullie was kind enough to update mw:Article feedback/Version 5/Technical Design#Query string options to now list the currently used query string options that we could test with on en.wp. I vaguely guess that there are further potential roadbumps for "quick & easy" testing by volunteers.

Maybe we could do this in two phases. The biggest advance work is a) to get a public test environment and b) to write a "test plan".

I would really like to use beta labs as a public test environment, with perhaps ee-prototype available also. AFTv5 is enabled for 100% of pages on beta right now, but it's a matter of getting testable code there in a timely fashion.

It might make sense to clear the Bugzilla cruft and provision beta labs as an exercise before doing a true AFTv5 testing exercise. It boils down to timing. Do we have time to sort Bugzilla and clear the decks so to speak before exposing AFTv5 to the public?

I can certainly spend some time on that, depending on what you (and probably Fabrice) have in mind for "clearing the decks", and where issues for the current state of affairs plus priorities are seen.

FYI, link to AFT and AFTv5 "Priority × Severity" Bugzilla tables: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/report.cgi?x_axis_field=bug_severity&y_axis_field=priority&z_axis_field=component&product=MediaWiki+extensions&component=ArticleFeedback&component=ArticleFeedbackv5&resolution=---&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&keywords_type=allwords&bug_id_type=anyexact&votes_type=greaterthaneq&emailtype3=substring&chfieldto=Now&j_top=AND&format=table&action=wrap

Here is the list of ArticleFeedback and ArticleFeedbackv5 bugs, excluding enhancements, that are open: [AF and AFv5 bugs].

Alternatively, here are the ArticleFeedback (24 bugs) and the ArticleFeedbackv5 (94 bugs) bugs, also excluding enhancements.

Thanks. I should probably try to clarify my previous comment: When I added my comment I had bug reports like https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37426 in mind which refer to a specific URL (in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden-crowned_Sparrow?aftv5_form=1&aftv5_link=E ) that passes some URL parameters, in this case aftv5_form=1 and aftv5_link=E. These parameters might not be active anymore in the server configuration of en.wikipedia.org, as can be seen in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Technical_Design#Query_string_options : Currently on en.wikipedia.org, only aftv5_form=6 and aftv5_link=X are active. So it is required to know this when triaging such reports or trying to reproduce other issues on en.wikipedia.org: Using a non-active value intentionally will not provide the expected results anymore due to changes to the server configuration in the meantime (values not active anymore, while values were active when the bug was reported). This means that any results of retesting such a bug report might NOT be due to a software bug in the codebase of AFT, but due to server configuration. I hope this comment makes sense and is understandable. :)

Chris is proposing this activity for the week of Feb 11. I have updated the table tagging the activity as (tentative) since it seems that changes might still come.

That week we have a Browser testing activity already scheduled, so we don't need to rush to confirm yours. If it needs to happen another week we can change it without any disruption.

This post was posted by Qgil-WMF, but signed as Qgil.