Difference between revisions of "Contribute/Bugsquad/How to triage bugs"

Jump to: navigation, search
(See if the bug still exists: test regression)
(See if the bug still exists)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
=See if the bug still exists=
 
=See if the bug still exists=
  
If there isn't a testcase, see if you can make one. That can be time consuming. If there is one, it should be in the subject line
+
The first three mostly apply to Konqueror & rendering bugs:
  
And on the "site-issue" bugs, it's entirely likely that it's a 6 year old site which has long vanished so read the comments, because there might be a useful testcase or something describing what was the problem in there. If it looks like there's enough to give a developer something to go on, put it under the "needs attention from dev" section.
+
* If there isn't a testcase, see if you can make one. That can be time consuming. If there is one, it should be in the bugzilla subject line as [testcase] or something.  
  
If it has a testcase, toss it into the testcase section. <b>If it is fixed, put it under the "fixed" section, AND mention that it has a testcase. This way the testcase can be added to the test regression suite.</b>
+
If it has a testcase, toss it into the "testcase section" of the wiki. <b>If it is a fixed bug, put it under the "fixed" section, AND mention that it has a testcase.</b> This way all the testcases can be added to the test regression suite.
  
If it has little information, and the site doesn't exist ---> INVALID *g*
+
* On "site-issue" bugs, it's entirely likely that it's a 6 year old site which has long vanished so read the comments, because there might be a useful testcase or something describing what was the problem in there. If it looks like there's enough to give a developer something to go on, put it under the "needs attention from dev" section.
  
If you can't change bugs other then comment, then just write your comment on the bug, always include your version (and distro if applicable) number, and then write it on the wiki.
+
* If it has little information, and the site doesn't exist ---> INVALID *g*
Someone will go through and double check stuff and mark what should be marked for you.
+
  
If you aren't sure about something, get a second opinion, and mention who seconded on the wiki, especially if it was a dev.
+
* If you can't change bug information yet, then just write your comment on the bug. Always include your version/revision number and distro/trunk/branch, and then write it on the wiki too. Mention that you can't change it yet, and someone will go through and double check stuff and mark what should be marked for you. Don't worry, you'll have bugzilla permissions pretty quickly.
And you'll have your own bugzilla perms in no time
+
  
If it works for us, then we close with WORKSFORME
+
* If you aren't sure about something, get a second opinion, and mention who seconded on the wiki, especially if it was a dev. (saves us work)
  
If you know what piece of code fixed it (usually we won't, but a dev would), then you close with FIXED
+
* If it works for us, then we close the bug with the chipper WORKSFORME.
  
The nice way of closing bugs that don't have enough information and you think are likely to be invalid at this point is REMIND. And add a note saying "if this is still a problem, please reopen with more information."
+
* If you know what piece of code fixed it (usually we won't, but a dev would), then you close with FIXED.
  
{{tip| We aren't very likely to come across duplicates. Tommi Tervo is very good at catching those, and has likely gone through all the older bugs at some point over the years. Always get a second opinion, traditionally dups are the highest false positives, and we do not want to close valid, real bugs. Last time, we ended up with only 3 duplicates, out of 355 bugs.}}
+
* The nice way of closing bugs that don't have enough information and you think are likely to be invalid at this point is REMIND. And add a note saying "if this is still a problem, please reopen with more information."
  
 +
{{tip| Old konqueror bugs aren't likely to have duplicates. Tommi Tervo and some of our other old-time triagers are very good at catching those, and have likely gone through all the older bugs at some point over the years. Always get a second opinion, traditionally dups are the highest false positives, and we do not want to close valid, real bugs. Last time, we ended up with only 3 duplicates, out of 355 bugs.}}
 +
 +
Hmm. The above doesn't apply with all the flash duplicates lately. :P
  
 
=if I can still replicate a bug=
 
=if I can still replicate a bug=

Revision as of 06:34, 13 May 2008

(from a barely edited irc log, with nixeagle's permission)

Contents

See if the bug still exists

The first three mostly apply to Konqueror & rendering bugs:

  • If there isn't a testcase, see if you can make one. That can be time consuming. If there is one, it should be in the bugzilla subject line as [testcase] or something.

If it has a testcase, toss it into the "testcase section" of the wiki. If it is a fixed bug, put it under the "fixed" section, AND mention that it has a testcase. This way all the testcases can be added to the test regression suite.

  • On "site-issue" bugs, it's entirely likely that it's a 6 year old site which has long vanished so read the comments, because there might be a useful testcase or something describing what was the problem in there. If it looks like there's enough to give a developer something to go on, put it under the "needs attention from dev" section.
  • If it has little information, and the site doesn't exist ---> INVALID *g*
  • If you can't change bug information yet, then just write your comment on the bug. Always include your version/revision number and distro/trunk/branch, and then write it on the wiki too. Mention that you can't change it yet, and someone will go through and double check stuff and mark what should be marked for you. Don't worry, you'll have bugzilla permissions pretty quickly.
  • If you aren't sure about something, get a second opinion, and mention who seconded on the wiki, especially if it was a dev. (saves us work)
  • If it works for us, then we close the bug with the chipper WORKSFORME.
  • If you know what piece of code fixed it (usually we won't, but a dev would), then you close with FIXED.
  • The nice way of closing bugs that don't have enough information and you think are likely to be invalid at this point is REMIND. And add a note saying "if this is still a problem, please reopen with more information."
Ktip.png
 
Tip
Old konqueror bugs aren't likely to have duplicates. Tommi Tervo and some of our other old-time triagers are very good at catching those, and have likely gone through all the older bugs at some point over the years. Always get a second opinion, traditionally dups are the highest false positives, and we do not want to close valid, real bugs. Last time, we ended up with only 3 duplicates, out of 355 bugs.


Hmm. The above doesn't apply with all the flash duplicates lately. :P

if I can still replicate a bug

See if it has a testcase, see if you can write one, put it on the wiki. Add a note saying the bug is still present and agian, and don't forget to give what version you're using.


put all bugs you look at on the wiki

It gives us an easy way to go through and double check what people have done, especially useful for those who don't have bugzilla perms

Where on the wiki do I edit?

Depends on what section If you go up a level or so from the link in the topic, you'll find the one from the last time we did this

http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Contribute/Bugsquad/BugDays/

You'll see how it's ended up looking now that we've gone through it a few times We're not putting any new bugs on there.

We also use the wiki to some extent to coordinate comments, at least to document what we said in irc.

We want to keep it all on one page, because on the 2nd and 3rd pass, we tend to move things around a LOT from section to section as stuff changes.

how many open bugs are against KDE as a whole?

A ton. You can check at ...

Ktip.png
 
Tip
If you just got a techbase wiki account, set the preferences to let you edit by section.

KDE® and the K Desktop Environment® logo are registered trademarks of KDE e.V.Legal