|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2019-12-13 03:50 UTC|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | My Account|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0001810||TestLink||Test Specification||public||2008-10-21 14:16||2015-04-26 15:43|
|Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0001810: Test Specification audit (maintain review process)|
I've added a feature in TL 1.7.3 to add a comment on a test case. I see this feature is listed in the roadmap for TL 1.9
1. A test case is created
2. Peer review is performed which suggests to change few things in the test case definition or steps. This review can be stored in testlink by commenting on a test case rather than send it by mail or messenger to test designer.
3. Original test designer creates a Version 2 of test case and performs changes specified by the reviewer, and adds a relevant comment that 'changes are incorporated...'
See the snapshot "TL_testcase_comments.JPG" - one picture is better than thousand words :-)
I'd like to add this functionality to main release. It involves data model change as well. Basically a new table that stores the comments (tc_id, tc_ver_id, comment_id, comment, user_id, create_date).
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|QA Team - Task Workflow Status|
|Attached Files|| TL_testcase_comments.JPG [^] (103,264 bytes) 2008-10-21 14:16
edited on: 2008-10-21 16:30
Review process is more complex task. But your piece of code could be one element. I draft my view:
REQ1: Review process could be enabled on test project level for each appropriate object. It means that one Test project could have review for Test cases but not for requirements. It's disabled by default.
REQ2: A user can review TL data object (Test Case, Test Suite, Test Plan, Requirement, ...) and add a result of review. Each such object could have the next states: draft (design mode), review (ready to review) and final.
Note: TC should be the first implementation.
REQ3: A user can add review notes if he is not satisfied with a reviewed data object. Review note is related to data object version and include the next fields: object_id (for example: tc_ver_id value), object_type, comment_id, comment, response, status, reviewer_id, review_date, resolver_id, resolve_date.
Comments and response could be plain text meantime.
Scenario: user would like review of TC. Open TC view page. Actions will be available with result to
a) "Approve TC" (TC version status will be modified to final)
b) "Add review comment" open a new page. Add one or more comments. (TC version status will be modified to draft)
REQ4: I'm not sure if we should add a new right for review. Thought?
REQ5: Test Plan: add/remove Test Cases, and Test case view should signal TC status. TC edit should allow to set-up states draft or review.
REQ6: A new TC version is created automatically if user choose to edit final version of TC.
REQ7: User can list all TC with review or draft state in a Test Suite.
REQ8: User can approve all TCs in a Test Suite by one action. TC with unresolved comment will not be finalized in this case.
Question: should not TC_version table log approve_user_id and date? Potentially this information could be stored also in review_comments table.
All, please review my view.
ashishsa, please attach your patch to the issue. Let me know, what you think about my concept.
Reminder sent to: ashishsa
Ashishsa, could you respond on my ideas and request? Thanks.
REQ9: Report about Reviews (Time, who, changes, TC new Version etc.)
Great feature, because i already seach a online Tool for document reviews with link to TestLink Testcases. It is better to have it as external tool and make reviews over API?
Because i don´t like "n" Review Systems?
I didn´t find a good tool? Do you have a idea?
I've done these code changes in TL 1.7.3 and tried to integrate code in 1.8 with not much success. I haven't got a good grasp of 1.8 code so is it possible that I send you code changes from 1.7.3 and you'll manage to integrate in latest version
Please assure that your changes are marked with your nick and attach to this issue. I hope that you find a time to add short feature description too. I do not expect that you satisfied reqs above. So It's fine to have overview what your changes do. Thanks.
We will see if how many code will be reused for 1.9.
The next definition is available in consts.php:
* data status constants are applicable for data like requirement, test case
* TL_REVIEW_STATUS_VALID is default value if review process is disabled
* Note: review process is not implemented yet (1.8)
define('TL_REVIEW_STATUS_VALID', 'V'); // data was reviewed; only these ones could be used for next work
define('TL_REVIEW_STATUS_DRAFT', 'D'); // data wait for review
define('TL_REVIEW_STATUS_OBSOLETE', 'O'); // data should not be available in analyse, reports and assignment
define('TL_REVIEW_STATUS_TODO', 'T'); // data need update (not ready for review)
define('TL_REVIEW_STATUS_FUTURE', 'F'); // data are not aplicable for the current work (planned to used in future)
$tlCfg->review_status_labels = array(
TL_REVIEW_STATUS_VALID => 'review_status_valid',
TL_REVIEW_STATUS_DRAFT => 'review_status_draft',
TL_REVIEW_STATUS_OBSOLETE => 'review_status_obsolete',
TL_REVIEW_STATUS_FUTURE => 'review_status_future',
TL_REVIEW_STATUS_TODO => 'review_status_todo');
We are still using Testlink 1.7.4 as we have customized it to our needs. Shall I go ahead and implement this feature for 1.7.4 itself?
the target release is 1.9 version (based on current CVS HEAD code). No way to use 1.7 or 1.8 version. It's closed.
I suggest to read at first: http://www.teamst.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=38 [^]
Of course you can send me your contribution for 1.7 and I will announce it on our pages.
Now, please analyse if your feature idea is compliant with requirements above. Thanks.
Will you please share code with me[feature in TL 1.7.3 to add a comment on a test case.], let me try the same with 1.8 version.
We are also in urgent need of this feature .Currently using 1.8.4 and adding a custom field in test cases to add review notes. The screenshot is very much close to what we want.
Need some help on how to make the changes. Pointers would be truly appreciated!
|Do we have any updates on this issue?|
there is any workaround for test case review process?
I noticed another topic:
|2008-10-21 14:16||ashishsa||New Issue|
|2008-10-21 14:16||ashishsa||File Added: TL_testcase_comments.JPG|
|2008-10-21 16:20||mhavlat||Note Added: 0004427|
|2008-10-21 16:20||mhavlat||Status||new => feedback|
|2008-10-21 16:30||mhavlat||Note Edited: 0004427|
|2008-11-21 23:50||mhavlat||Note Added: 0004687|
|2009-02-10 20:22||mhavlat||Status||feedback => acknowledged|
|2009-02-10 20:22||mhavlat||Summary||Contribution - Test Specification audit (maintain review process) => Test Specification audit (maintain review process)|
|2009-02-11 01:44||rinmar||Note Added: 0005376|
|2009-02-11 14:25||ashishsa||Note Added: 0005387|
|2009-02-11 17:36||mhavlat||Note Added: 0005393|
|2009-02-11 17:36||mhavlat||Assigned To||=> mhavlat|
|2009-02-11 17:38||mhavlat||Reproducibility||always => N/A|
|2009-02-11 17:38||mhavlat||Projection||none => major rework|
|2009-02-11 17:38||mhavlat||Category||New Feature => Test Specification|
|2009-02-11 17:38||mhavlat||ETA||none => < 1 week|
|2009-02-26 16:22||mhavlat||Relationship added||has duplicate 0001585|
|2009-03-09 18:28||mhavlat||Note Added: 0005791|
|2009-05-07 11:13||lakshmi86||Note Added: 0006776|
|2009-05-07 11:33||mhavlat||Note Added: 0006777|
|2009-06-29 16:33||mhavlat||Relationship added||related to 0002664|
|2010-02-28 22:27||mhavlat||Assigned To||mhavlat =>|
|2010-03-24 15:28||irfanexpress||Note Added: 0009502|
|2010-04-10 15:26||arjunshrivatsan||Note Added: 0009692|
|2010-07-17 08:48||arjunshrivatsan||Note Added: 0010689|
|2013-07-23 17:51||flaviobeck||Note Added: 0019322|
|2015-04-26 15:43||Mr.Bricodage||Relationship deleted||related to 0002664|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2019 MantisBT Team|