[Koha-devel] Proposal for a change in guidelines for the sign-off process in the Koha-community

[Heather Braum (NEKLS)]

I don't want to weigh in on the overall discussion around these changes,
but I thinkOwen's point about a setting up a separate test instance to test
major features like his example of bug 6427 is a very good idea, and would
allow many people to test it thoroughly, in a more robust, almost live
environment. The more eyes on something this critical, the better,
especially if you involve librarians at the circulation desk who deal with
this part of the system many, many times a day. But having a test system
these people can access is the key -- they aren't normally engaged in the
community, but you know they know the fining system, and want to see it
work.

My organization has been waiting for this development for over a year now,
and I can think of several people at our libraries that I'd be willing to
volunteer to do some thorough testing if something like this was set up.

Heather Braum
NExpress Coordinator
Resource Sharing Librarian
Northeast Kansas Library System
hbraum at nekls.org

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read
and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." ~Alvin
Toffler, *Rethinking the Future*




On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Owen Leonard <oleonard at myacpl.org> wrote:

> > I'd like to put forward a motion for removal of the guideline that one
> > company shouldn't sign-off on the same company's patches within the
> > community.
>
> I think this is a good rule, and I think our current process has
> proved that by showing that with many different points of view looking
> at the code more issues can be found which need to be addressed before
> something is ready.
>
> I realize how frustrating it is to have something big and hard to test
> languish in the QA process, but I think the right solution might be to
> get more creative about how to help things move along.
>
> From my perspective as a bug tester the biggest thing I can say about
> it is to have good test plans. I mean really really good test plans.
> List, explicitly, every possible step that the tester could take to
> test the patch.
>
> The obvious example here is Bug 6427 - Rewrite of the accounts system
> (http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6427). A big
> patch that touches a LOT of files and involves one of the most
> mission-critical aspects of Koha's circulation functionality. Pushing
> it before it was properly tested could be disastrous for libraries who
> collect fines throughout the day.
>
> The bug has a pretty good test plan, but is that enough? What else
> could we do to make sure it's ready for production? Perhaps set up a
> dedicated test instance with some good sample data, give out logins
> which give permission to circulate and collect fines, assign multiple
> days' worth of tests to be performed by multiple testers?
>
> Getting volunteer testers is hard, and getting multiple volunteer
> testers is harder, but sometimes I think we need to take a more active
> hand in soliciting and promoting testing.
>
>   -- Owen
>
> --
> Web Developer
> Athens County Public Libraries
> http://www.myacpl.org
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20141015/e00817ea/attachment.html>