19:06:29 <cait> #startmeeting QA Team Meeting
19:06:29 <huginn`> Meeting started Tue Sep  3 19:06:29 2013 UTC.  The chair is cait. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:06:29 <huginn`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:06:29 <huginn`> The meeting name has been set to 'qa_team_meeting'
19:06:43 <cait> #topic introductions
19:06:43 <wahanui> #info wahanui, a bot that has become sentient
19:06:53 <cait> ok, quick poll - who is around? :)
19:07:02 <cait> #info Katrin Fischer, BSZ
19:07:08 <bag> #info Brendan Gallagher
19:07:29 <paul_p> #info Paul Poulain, BibLibre
19:07:30 <khall> #info Kyle M Hall, ByWater Solutions
19:07:47 <cait> #topic Agenda
19:07:55 <Joubu> #info Jonathan Druart, BibLibre
19:07:59 <cait> ah :)
19:08:14 <cait> ok, today's agenda is on the wiki
19:08:14 <Joubu> (sorry for being late)
19:08:19 <cait> #info Agenda: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/QA_team_meeting,_3rd_September_2013
19:08:31 <cait> we are not as many as I had hoped for
19:08:44 <cait> but maybe we can still discuss a few things and gather some ideas
19:09:08 <cait> is there something missing on the agenda? or something we should leave out for today? Discuss first?
19:10:05 <paul_p> cait = joubu & I have discussed of what we putted on the agenda, you added a few things that I agree with, so the agenda is OK for me
19:10:06 <cait> do i need to bribe you all with cookies?
19:10:11 <paul_p> ;-)
19:10:19 <khall> looks good to me!
19:10:20 <druthb> #info Ruth Bavousett
19:10:32 <druthb> I'm here, with cookies!
19:10:43 <cait> :)
19:10:50 <cait> ok, i think we got another agenda item
19:10:57 <cait> ruth has offered to help out with QA
19:11:09 <khall> druthb++
19:11:22 <cait> #topic QA team
19:11:32 <cait> khall: i think that was a yes? :)
19:11:42 <khall> absolutely!
19:11:52 <druthb> Not sure how much time I'll have, but I'll try to throw a few in, particularly on the UNIMARC patches that are needing signoff, and other things that Her Caitness needs me to do.
19:11:53 <paul_p> druthb++ (yes for me as well
19:11:54 <paul_p> )
19:11:55 <cait> any more opinions?
19:11:59 <bag> I can test SIP - but all SIP2 patches in agenda are from khall so I can't…  perhaps I can schedule sometime with cait to help QA those?
19:12:16 <khall> bag: how about those ldap related patches?
19:12:19 <cait> bag: that would be helpful - i have figured out how to set up the sip server by now :)
19:12:28 <bag> I will do the LDAP one.  I can test that :)
19:12:45 <cait> great :)
19:12:51 <cait> let's move a bit slower so i can keep up
19:12:54 <bag> heh
19:12:59 <cait> i will note that we have ruth on the qa team now
19:13:24 <cait> #info druthb will join the QA team to help out qa'ing
19:13:29 <paul_p> bag & cait & others = in the previous release, the rule for QA was "anyone from the QA team, even someone involved in the patch or signoff, can QA once the patch is more than 1 month old". afaik, this rule has not been cancelled
19:13:46 <cait> no it has not, but the old ones are pretty complicated
19:13:57 <cait> so i think for those it's a bit difficult
19:14:00 <cait> let me st a new topic
19:14:05 <cait> #topic QA priorities
19:14:09 <cait> ok
19:14:12 <cait> we have bag for LDAP?
19:14:20 <bag> oh paul_p I did not know that
19:14:35 <paul_p> bag meeting already useful then ;-)
19:14:38 <cait> #action bag offered to QA LDAP patches - starting with bug 9299
19:14:39 <huginn`> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9299 major, P3, ---, nunyo, Signed Off , for loop in Auth_with_ldap.pm requires an extended patron attribute to be set or LDAP logins fail
19:15:06 <cait> #action bag also offered to help cait test SIP2 patches
19:15:10 <cait> ;)
19:15:19 <khall> nor did I. I assume QA'ing my own original patch would be a bad idea still? But QAing something where I only wrote a followup would be ok, assuming it's older than a month.
19:15:21 <cait> ok, and druthb would offer to look at UNIMARC?
19:15:28 <cait> khall: definitely
19:15:29 <druthb> yis.
19:15:33 <cait> and it's an emergency rule
19:15:46 <cait> and not for huge patches
19:16:09 <cait> #action druthb will try to take a look at UNIMARC patches
19:16:19 <cait> i am going to add you as a QA contact to those later?
19:16:23 <bag> what equals a HUGE patch?
19:16:37 <bag> bigger font? :P
19:16:48 <cait> bug 8015 is quite huge if you look at the list of patches there
19:16:49 <huginn`> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8015 new feature, P4, ---, kyle.m.hall, Signed Off , Add MARC Modifications Templates
19:16:54 <cait> i think big new features count as huge
19:17:09 * druthb hands cait the wiffle bat, to use as needed on rowdy Californians.
19:17:17 <cait> i think it would be better if you get worried about a bug to contact other qa team members who can take a look first
19:17:33 <bag> sounds like a good idea
19:17:58 <mtj> hi all
19:18:02 <cait> hi mtj
19:18:31 <cait> I know currently a lot of things are stuck in the queue
19:18:35 * mtj reads the scrollback...
19:18:50 <cait> that's part of the reason for the meeting... I think we need to try and lower the numbers
19:18:57 <cait> because the deadlines are getting really close
19:19:04 <Joubu> I started to qa 8015 and submitted a lot of followups, so I would prefer others pair of eyes look at it. But it looks very good to me!
19:19:13 <cait> bug 8015
19:19:13 <wahanui> bug 8015 is quite huge if you look at the list of patches there
19:19:42 <cait> Joubu: I am going to try - but i don't have a lot of spare time right now - september is busy month here, which is a problem
19:19:44 <paul_p> cait OTOH, without galen pushing, reducing QA queue won't be successfull (too bad gmcharlt is not around...)
19:20:08 <cait> paul_p: gmcharlt wanted to be here, but i think he has been travelling the last few days and only comes back today
19:20:29 <cait> I think even RM deserves some days off? :)
19:22:06 <druthb> no days off for the RM!
19:22:15 <cait> i know that developers are frustrated about their things not going in
19:22:18 <cait> it's understandable
19:22:39 <cait> but we only can change that by working together - i can't do a lot more than i have been doing the last few months - so I really need some help here to get things moving
19:22:42 <bag> how many passed QA are still waiting to be pushed?
19:22:46 <khall> we currently have 63 bugs set to Passed QA
19:22:47 <drojf> #info Mirko Tietgen, lurking
19:23:07 <cait> hi drojf
19:23:14 <cait> dashboard?
19:23:14 <wahanui> dashboard is at http://dashboard.koha-community.org/
19:23:19 * bag sends caffeine to gmcharlt
19:23:20 <cait> bag: the numbers are there, in color :)
19:23:22 <drojf> or is it over already? :)
19:23:33 <bag> cait I am THE dense sometimes :P
19:23:50 <cait> i think the one waiting to be pushed are not the problem, those numbers tend to get lower pretty fast when the RM is in action
19:24:17 <cait> and we can help out with giving things a second sign off there too
19:24:35 <cait> i think the queues we need to discuss are waiting for qa and needs sign-off
19:25:24 <mtj> agreed
19:26:40 <cait> I would reall ylike to try and get the number of bugs down in that queue first - because those get transported down into the maintained versions
19:26:43 <paul_p> cait = I agree we have to speak of the to-qa queue, but the pile of passed QA patches contains 10 patches that are pending since june. So I don't share your optimism about the QA queue being lowered when the RM pushes. But let's speak of the to-qa queue
19:26:47 <cait> and we should have them as stable as possible
19:27:14 <cait> paul_p: I know some of those are quite big
19:27:55 <khall> that's a sensible proposition. Is there anyway to filter bugzilla for just signed-off bugs? I haven't found one.
19:28:21 <bag> hmm do some of the to-qa patches depend on "passed QA" to be pushed?
19:28:34 <cait> khall: not sure i understand you right : ) but thequeues on he dashboard are linked :)
19:28:35 <paul_p> cait I already have said that many times, but my conviction is that "push asap enhancement, and take time to test/check them before release" is the most efficent way to go
19:28:54 <cait> yeah, but noone is going to test
19:28:58 <paul_p> cait (an off topic question once again...)
19:29:01 <cait> noone is going to take that time
19:29:14 <cait> in my experience :) and i have said that before
19:29:25 <khall> I'm afraid I agree with both cait and paul_p ; )
19:29:57 <cait> if noone takes the time before they go oin - it's unlikely someone will once they do
19:30:07 <cait> pulling things out that have proven problamtic after being pushed has proved quite hard
19:30:14 <cait> and getting bugs fixed often as well
19:30:30 <cait> but we will always disagree on that I think :)
19:30:31 <khall> cait: I can search for all signed-off patches easily, but I'm not aware of any way to filter by "Importance"
19:30:45 <bag> doesn't signoff and QA help eliminate some of that problem though?  isn't that the point?
19:30:46 <paul_p> cait = i'd like to leave this question for later, and go back to agenda. But that's a topic for hackfest, probably...
19:31:25 <cait> khall: you can add severity and priority to the list as columns, the option is at the bottom of the bugzilla search result list
19:31:26 <khall> agreed, we could discuss this for hours
19:31:30 <cait> khall:  andsort by those
19:31:35 <khall> thanks cait!
19:31:46 <cait> bag: yep i think that is the point :)
19:31:59 <cait> ok, i think we are not ´moving here... so moving on seems like a good idea
19:32:14 <cait> #topic passing QA
19:33:06 <cait> we have seen a lot of work on unit tests lately :) that's great
19:33:08 <cait> kenza++ again
19:33:17 <cait> i also find them really helpful when doing QA
19:33:32 <cait> and I think we should encourage them the best we can
19:34:04 <cait> I think currently we have been asking for tests for new subs and changes to existing ones
19:34:10 <cait> that seems to work quite well
19:35:01 <paul_p> agreed.
19:35:09 <khall> agreed
19:35:34 <druthb> +1
19:35:41 <cait> cool :) so we can agree! :)
19:35:48 <bag> +1
19:36:17 <cait> @agreed ask for unit tests when new routines get added to the API and existing ones are being changed
19:36:18 <huginn`> cait: I'll give you the answer just as soon as RDA is ready
19:36:22 <paul_p> side question = do we have a "qa rule" page on the wiki. I think we should
19:36:33 <cait> #agreed agreed ask for unit tests when new routines get added to the API and existing ones are being changed
19:36:45 <cait> no, we haven't one yet - but i think it's a good idea
19:36:54 <bag> yes that would be nice
19:37:03 <cait> #action add a page with information about QA to the wiki
19:37:05 <Joubu> I agree too, even if a lot of modules/routines are not easy at all to test without having a global unit tests file for this module
19:37:08 <paul_p> QA manager, you take care of creating it ?
19:37:19 <cait> i thik the unit test one could maybe go on the coding guidelines as well - if the RM agrees
19:37:48 <cait> i can
19:38:21 <paul_p> Joubu can you give more details about " a lot of modules/routines are not easy at all to test without having a global unit tests file" ? Could we quickly add an "empty" unit test file for all modules ?
19:38:29 <mtj> looks like we all agree about the unit tests :)
19:38:34 <paul_p> something like a framework
19:39:01 <cait> Joubu: is the problem creating the data?
19:39:34 <khall> cait: I'd say that's usually the most difficult part for me.
19:39:49 <cait> i think it got easier using transactions now
19:40:01 <cait> i have tried my hands on some and it's seems a lot easier than mocking
19:40:13 <cait> but i am still stuck on a patch where i need to mock a cgi object
19:40:15 <cait> ...
19:40:16 <khall> the biggest problem I see with requiring unit tests for exisiting subroutines are some are quite large and do far too much
19:40:23 <Joubu> C4::Circ, C4::Auth, C4::Acq don't have unit tests for all routines. It will be though to modify some routines in these modules.
19:40:38 <Joubu> tough
19:40:51 <cait> i thik we can still make exceptions in some cases, but without trying we won't get good examples to copy from
19:41:04 <cait> i am iwlling to make exceptions for bugs for example
19:41:18 <cait> if the solution can be tested well using a test plan
19:41:33 <khall> agreed. I think new subs need a strict requiremtn for unit tests, existing code a yes with case by case exemptions
19:42:23 <cait> i think maybe differentiate between adding new features and fixing bad behaviour there too
19:43:18 <cait> I'd like to postpone the discussion about the new module
19:43:27 <khall> yes. We don't want to hold up bugfixes any more than we have too
19:43:45 <cait> I'd like to get an opinion of gmcharlt on the possiblity of dbix for 3.14
19:44:52 <bag> that would be great
19:45:03 <cait> it would be
19:45:24 <cait> Joubu: i am sorry, i know that#s your topic, i will try to follow up on that
19:46:46 <cait> ok to move on to the next topic? should I add something more to the minutes?
19:47:13 <Joubu> I asked Galen to give his opinion on bug 10363, but I didn't have any feedback
19:47:14 <huginn`> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10363 enhancement, P5 - low, ---, jonathan.druart, In Discussion , There is no package for authorised values.
19:47:41 <cait> Joubu: i will try to look after that one
19:48:33 <cait> which brings me to the next topic :)
19:48:42 <cait> #topic Ideas to improve throughput
19:49:38 <bag> cloning Joubu and the rest of the team
19:50:07 <cait> bag:  not sure i can let that count :) but .... oh well
19:50:45 <cait> #idea clone the QA team :)
19:50:52 <cait> something else? :)
19:50:59 <mtj> falling back on the 1 month rule would indeed improve throughput
19:51:12 <cait> but in the wrong way.
19:51:16 <Joubu> I think QAers should not failed QA a patch for minor things (some tabs, etc.) but rather submit a followup themselves
19:51:33 <cait> Joubu: I agree
19:51:38 <cait> also capitalization maybe
19:51:49 <cait> small things, not changing logic
19:51:59 <Joubu> no, of course
19:52:21 <cait> #idea QA team can provide follow ups for small problems (tabs, typos, capitalization...)
19:52:42 <mtj> joubu, agreed, thats what i usually do
19:52:50 <cait> i have found it's easier to qa big patches when the developer is around to ask questions
19:53:14 <cait> i have done that a few times and it was quite productive
19:53:15 <Joubu> mtj: yes, me too
19:53:20 <paul_p> cait & joubu = that's what I made when I was RM and QAed patches. small things like capitalization or things like that are easy to fix & should be by the QAer
19:53:24 <cait> i think we see a similar effect during the hackfests too
19:53:25 <jcamins> Joubu: in cases where it would take longer to do the follow-up, I suggest just failing it. That was my rule during 3.12. If it's faster to fix than ask for a fix, fix it. Otherwise, kick it back and ask for a fix.
19:54:37 <cait> #idea set up a time with the developer to work on their patches - so you can ask questions
19:54:43 <bag> maybe have a QA day or sprint?  like we scheduled this meeting - or something similar to Global bug squashing day
19:55:28 <cait> GBSD might help with that - we could be around looking at patches of developers that are on IRC that time, give feedback more directly
19:55:45 <cait> ah, bag is typing faster :)
19:55:59 <bag> it's the coffee - not me
19:56:01 <cait> i was thinking maybe fold it into gbsd - but we could also do a special one
19:56:16 <paul_p> I really love the idea of setting up a time to discuss of a given bug. Something regular, like "every friday, at 6AM GMT"
19:56:20 <druthb> special_qa_sprint_day++
19:56:28 <cait> would it be possible that people dedicate some time to that idea?
19:56:33 <cait> if we set up a date?
19:56:50 <bag> if the date is set - I can clear my schedule with enough notice
19:56:51 <druthb> 6 AM GMT?  And here I thought that the French had given up on torture.
19:56:59 <cait> #idea have a QA sprint day
19:57:23 <cait> i guess it would have to be a global friday - we are really far spread around the globe
19:58:06 <cait> this time is late for europe, but actually the best option we have with the qa team widely spread
19:58:30 <cait> should we try and set a date for a qa sprint?
19:58:49 <bag> would be best to have RM present - maybe fridays aren't the best for him?  let's pole the RM
19:58:58 <cait> pole?
19:59:05 <bag> poll
19:59:06 <paul_p> druthb it was just an example. and we could have various options.
19:59:07 <cait> ah
19:59:28 <cait> maybe we could suggest a date
19:59:37 <druthb> paul_p:  :P
19:59:40 <cait> and see if that works
19:59:51 <bag> cait: let's do it and see what happens
19:59:53 <cait> what about....
20:00:00 * cait searches for her calendar
20:00:08 <mtj> how about a wednesday?
20:00:09 <wahanui> a wednesday is fine for me
20:01:00 <cait> wednesdy woudl work for me
20:01:03 <Joubu> It would be really great if wahanui could qa patches...
20:01:05 <cait> what about 11th?
20:01:22 <mtj> +1
20:02:01 <bag> +1
20:02:14 <Joubu> +1
20:02:21 <bag> alright back to training for me - cya later
20:02:21 <drojf> you know that there is the regular meeting too?
20:05:18 <cait> no, but might not be a bad thing
20:05:18 <cait> i mean it doesn't necessarily interfere
20:05:18 <cait> hm depends if we want to set a time too or make it a global one
20:05:18 <cait> we could also make it thursday
20:05:18 <cait> or friday
20:05:18 <cait> 12th or 13th
20:05:18 <cait> any preferences?
20:05:42 <paul_p> 12th could be possible for me. 13th (my) morning won't be possible
20:06:12 <cait> that's for 12th?
20:06:27 <cait> #agreed 12th September suggested date for QA sprint
20:07:24 <cait> mtj: ok for you too? sorry i might have been too fast
20:07:48 <cait> ok, any more ideas?
20:07:48 <mtj> ok for me too :)
20:08:13 <cait> would someone be willing ot set up a wiki page for it?
20:08:33 <cait> i am travelling all day tomorrow and it would be nice to get that out and announced
20:09:00 <mtj> i can do the wiki page today
20:09:08 <druthb> mtj++
20:09:09 <cait> mtj: awesome!
20:09:09 <wahanui> That'll be $1 for the awesome jar, cait
20:09:12 <cait> mtj++
20:09:19 <paul_p> mtj++ !
20:09:22 <cait> #action mtj to create a wiki page for the first QA sprint
20:09:56 * druthb puts .76 Euro in the jar for cait.
20:10:11 <cait> thx druthb
20:10:48 <cait> do we want to set up another meeting?
20:10:56 <cait> or see how the qa sprint works out first?
20:11:19 <paul_p> cait I don't have a preference
20:11:28 <paul_p> cait both are possible
20:12:20 <cait> so let's see how the qa sprint goes
20:12:37 <cait> i#d love if as many qa people as possible coudl dedicate sometime
20:12:48 <cait> maybe send a note to the list or put on the wiki page when you can be around
20:13:04 <cait> working on qA
20:14:11 <mtj> cait, ill ping you when the wiki is done
20:14:23 <cait> thank you mtj
20:14:26 <cait> and thx for volunteering
20:15:09 <cait> maybe you could add a section for a little schedule? let's see if we can make use of being globally spread?
20:15:27 <cait> ok, i am going to close the meeting now
20:15:44 <cait> #agreed new meeting to be determined after QA sprint day
20:15:48 <cait> #endmeeting