@sharif thanks for pointing out timeline concerns, i think we don’t have enough time to get volunteers to work effectively on the tests i had created tickets for in JiRA, perhaps @burke’s recommendation of not trying to have exhaustive testing vs priority testing responds to this. am wondering how further we can support your testing ATM?
@burke, i like the thought of working on more platform tests with the understanding that a lot is being changed under the hood, am not sure how we can however support this area knowing that legacy or rest are different pieces out of the platform, perhaps if all revisions were covered by unit and integrated tests we would have a little more confidence about not releasing breaking changes.
@k.joseph Thanks alot for your input effort and @christine , Since the testing both manual and integration tests input is not as expected we shall try to consider first priority testing areas of need. Then we can handle other areas when time allows,
The good point is that tickets you created are already in jira , so it becomes easy to track however as you said in call today, there seem to be a challenge for those not much familiar with such QA UI tests but i think that can be tracked via a pull request . otherwise thanks
@k.joseph you read my mind. Thanks so much for kicking off this follow up thread. What is stopping us from having these platform tests in place? E.g. Are there people with the time/interest to work on tests like that, and we need a clearly prioritized list for them to work through?
@sharif there are a number of blockers in Jira that seem attached to the RefApp 2.11.0 release. I’d argue that we need a strategy to either postpone this release to get those addressed, or commit to a RefApp 2.11.1 release shortly after that includes those fixes.