On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 07:56:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey, folks! > > I spent some time today fiddling around with the installation validation > matrix. I haven't applied the changes to Beta TC1 to give us some time > to review/tweak them, but they're in the template: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Installation_test_matrix > > so, I did a few things: > > * Split several test groups out from the big ugly "Miscellaneous" table > into their own tables > * Moved a few test cases from "Miscellaneous" into the storage tables > * Dropped three duplicated tests > * Cleaned up the table formatting: > ** We don't need the ugly nested tables to have collapsible tables with > nice header lines, you can do it within a single table like this > ** Dropped all the icky hard-coded column widths, let's just let > mediawiki sort it out > ** Made the tables span the full page width (more space!) > ** Renamed "Release Level" to "Milestone" (it's shorter, and it's the > term we've been standardizing on across the docs) > ** Dropped all remaining "test area" columns (not needed with enough > sub-tables) > * Moved the instructions and notes we have for a few of the tables > inside the tables themselves > * Dropped the sub-sections from the matrix, instead you can wrap table > titles in <h4></h4> and they show up in the ToC (trick I found in the > Mediawiki docs) > * Tried to give each of the zillion tables we now have a color, it's not > the prettiest - anyone with a better eye than me can find the HTML color > list at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_color_tryit.asp?color=White > and go nuts. > > Where I created new tables I tried to be strategic about the > 'environments', because we clearly have just too many tests now to run > them all in every possible environment. So I tried to reduce the > environments where possible without hurting test coverage too much. If > anyone thinks it simplifies things too much in terms of arch coverage, > yell. > I think the page is a lot cleaner now - also easier to find tests you might be looking for. Digging through the huge General Tests table was usually a pain. > Thoughts: wow, the page is getting long. The separate tables make it a > bit longer, but the table formatting improvements and loss of section > heads make it a bit shorter, so the changes are kind of a wash, but > that's *really* a lot of tests on one page. > > I think it would be feasible to split it into three: something like > sanity tests ("Image sanity tests", "Default boot and install", "ARM > disk images", "Cloud images", "PXE boot tests", "USB stick tests", > "Virtualization tests"), installation storage tests (all the storage > stuff) and installer functionality tests (the rest). I actually used > this split, more or less, to come up with the color scheme (each of > those 'areas' uses variations on one color). Does that seem like a good > idea? We'd have more results pages per compose, but each one would be > shorter. With relval the creation of the results pages is just as easy > either way (doing it by hand, it gets tedious if there are too many). > I think everyone is pretty used to a single large page. And, now that it's better organized I think people will have a easier time using it. I'm not opposed to having several pages, but I like being able to look one place to see how much coverage we have. Perhaps if there was a way to split them out but still have an "overview" page showing coverage we could have the best of both - but I don't know how much work or how possible that is. > Thoughts #2: there's a little bit of instruction text at the top of the > page: > > "Please click [show] in each table to view the tests of each media > installation, and click [edit] to post your test results using the > syntax in Key Section. " > > which suggests we initially meant the collapsible tables to be > *collapsed* by default. Does anyone remember if we ever did that? Does > anyone think it might be a good idea? (I'm also thinking of collapsing > the page ToC by default, because it sure takes up a lot of vertical > space). > I think having them collapsed by default makes sense - but that also gets in the way of the thing I said I liked earlier, being able to scroll one page and see coverage. So I guess I'm +/- 1 for collapsing all of the tables. +1 for collapsing the ToC by default though. > Feedback and improvements welcome! Thanks :) > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
