Hello, Hake and team. I inspected your abbreviations of test types. I have some comments.

1. I can’t understand why we need that “T”, it makes difficult to read text. I vote for clear and understandable definitions without “T” letter.

2. TERRR, as I understand should be just ERR.

3. “TNEXE” maybe better NOT_EXEC? EXE feels like Windows execution file abbreviation.

 

My variants are below.

TYPE Name

PASS

FAIL

ERR

WARN

NOT_EXEC

IGNR

MISS

 

Maksim

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Hake Huang
Sent: 2020年5月26日 6:35
To: maxxliferobot@...; testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Summary all comments: I propose below type definitions:

 

Basic rules is:

1.      5 chars for each type

2.      clear definition

3.      test specific token

 

TYPE Name	Explanation	Actions
TPASS	test was successful
TFAIL	test assertion(s) failed	Report github issue
TERRR	test setup fails	Owner shall recheck
TWARN	other error occurred during the execution	Report github issue with low priority
TNEXE	Test was skipped due to some conditions at the specification stage	No actions
TIGNR	Test was skipped due to being marked manually by a user	No actions
TMISS	test was in the specification marked as to be executed, although it was not found in the report	Owner shall recheck

 

 

Regards,

Hake

 

From: testing-wg@... <testing-wg@...> On Behalf Of Maksim Masalski via lists.zephyrproject.org
Sent: 2020年5月25日 20:47
To: testing-wg@...
Subject: Re: [EXT] [testing-wg] Updated Event: Zephyr: Testing WG weekly call #cal-invite

 

Caution: EXT Email

Today we should agree on how test types will be defined. To my mind each test type definition should have only 1 robust definition. It is better to avoid "or", "some" words in the definition, because it will make unclear during testing why that test type happened. Will mark my comments using cursive font

a)      PASS - test was successful Agree

b)      FAIL - test assertion(s) failed Agree

c)      ERROR – is usually reported when test setup fails before the test even attempts to test the test assertions or(!) some other error occurred during the execution. I think necessary to split that. Make ERR1 and ERR_DARK
ERR1 -reported when test setup fails before the test even attempts to test the test assertions. ERR_DARK-some other error occurred during the execution, Nobody knows what exactly error is.

d)      NOT_EXECUTED (reason in msg) - Test was skipped due to some conditions at the specification stage (e.g. was on a filtered list). This would indicate that the behavior (not executing) was expected Agree, only if reason will be in msg. Why to make it shorter? NOT_EXEC

e)      IGNORED – Test was skipped due to being marked manually by a user. E.g. faulty tests could get such flag before they are repaired and be skipped during the execution. Why to make it shorter? IGNORE

f)       MISSING – test was in the specification marked as to be executed, although it was not found in the report. It will work only if we decide to take an approach where after tests execution the program runs through the list of tests in the specification (extracted in advance) and looks for the results in the results report. Why to make it shorter? MISS