QA/Contribute/QA 101

From MozillaWiki
< QA‎ | Contribute
Jump to: navigation, search

QA 101 will be a series of seminars focusing on topics of general interest in the software QA community. Currently envisioned as a collaboration between Mozilla QA and the Mozilla Community Building Team, the seminars should each be 15 minutes or so, short enough to view at one sitting.

See also: Automation and web scripting is covered in QA 201.

Topics under consideration

Testing Terminology

This introductory seminar will define terms like black box vs. white box, unit tests vs. functional tests vs. acceptance tests, and other bits of vocabulary used in software QA environments. What do STR, WFM, and LGTM stand for?

Black Box Testing

What is black box testing and how does it differ from other techniques? When is it appropriate, and when is it not enough?

Good Bug Reports

What makes a good bug report? How much detail is needed, and which details? What is the appropriate action when a bug is returned marked INVALID?

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writing_guidelines

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/What_to_do_and_what_not_to_do_in_Bugzilla

Communicating with Developers

Beyond good bug reports, what can a tester do to insure that bugs lead to positive outcomes? What other avenues of communication are there besides the bug tracker? Where are the opportunities to collaborate with developers and build a good rapport with them?

http://www.hyperspacedatasolutions.com/2012/blog/10-keys-to-communicating-effectively-with-developers-2/

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/08/14/how-to-effectively-communicate-with-developers/

http://www.sitepoint.com/12-tips-for-better-developer-communication/

Steps to Reproduce

Reproduction steps are essential to the developer in diagnosing bugs and verifying fixes. How can the tester ensure that STR are both minimal and sufficient?

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writing_guidelines

Pilot programs

Unclear: we have a pretty good use case for QA 201, but for non-automated testing the outlook is a little murkier. More thought needed.

2015 meeting notes