[maemo-developers] Extras QA checklist

[From: Quim Gil]

Hi,

ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Quim's done a sterling job producing a first draft of the Extras QA
> checklist. This is the list of things which need to be checked before
> an application should get a "thumbs up" in the packages UI[1]:
> 
>     http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist

Thanks Andrew. So... with this I interpret my task

9.08-10  Draft quality guidelines for extras-testing to extras promotion

is DONE and you continue with

9.08-11 Document & communicate packages interface to testers


> BUG TRACKER
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> My own issue is the XSBC-Bugtracker requirement. Some applications
> really are trivial and having this as a blocker doesn't make sense to
> me; after all, testers can leave comments against a specific version
> in the packages UI and most end-users don't raise bugs IME:
> 
>     http://wiki.maemo.org/Talk:Extras-testing/QA_Checklist#Bug_tracker

So this could be an automatic check from extras-devel to extras-testing
making sure the field exists and is filled with a value starting with
"http://"

For starters and for simple apps is good enough to add
"http://maemo.org/packages" as bug tracker. But if things get more
complex then testers should encourage the developers to have a propoer
bug tracker in bugs.maemo.org or elsewhere.

If we all agree then we can implement this in the extras-devel automated
tests and remove it from the Extras-testing QA checklist once it's
proven to work.


> "DUBIOUS" CONTENT
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The phrases here include "promote or endorse the misuse of alcohol,
> tobacco, illegal drugs or other addictive substances" and "promote
> gambling". These are weasel words. What about "Dope Wars"[2] or a
> simulated gambiling poker application? What about an actual online
> gaming application?
> 
> I think this should be a SHOULD NOT and contain "excessive" and/or
> "likely to cause offense".

Yes, agreed. I didn't know exactly where to start so I took the Ovi
guidelines almost literally.


> META-DATA
> ~~~~~~~~~
>   * I think a good package description should be a MUST.
>   * I think XB-Maemo-Icon-26 should be a SHOULD.
>   * I think XB-Maemo-Display-Name should be a SHOULD (there are apps,
>     like vim, which don't require any capitalisation or spacing
>     changes over and above the package name).

Sounds good.

About the responses, it looks like we are trying to find corner cases
that according to the written word would be approved/blocked. Let's not
forget that ultimately such guidelines need to convince at least 10 very
human testers. Common sense is expected to prevail over the literal
written word.

It's difficult to describe beauty but it's easy to recognize it when you
see it. We can fine tune the ugly corner cases as they come.

-- 
Quim Gil
open source advocate
Maemo Devices @ Nokia