1541582 - If an uplift request answers Yes to needing manual QA, the qe-verify flag should be set to '+', not '?'

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: Extensions, defect)

Description

[Matthew N. [:MattN]]

See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1538952#a777766_305228 where it was incorrectly reset to '?'.

Definitions of the flag from the tooltip:

qe-verify: ? ➜ request to assess whether the bug should be tested manually
qe-verify: + ➜ request to verify the bug manually
qe-verify: – ➜ the bug will not/can not be verified manually

Comment 1

[Matthew N. [:MattN]]

Attachment: GitHub Pull Request

Comment 2

[Kohei Yoshino]

Looks like the definition of the qe-verify flag is about to change. See Bug 1528106.

Comment 3

[Matthew N. [:MattN]]

IMO the behaviour seen in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1538952#a777766_305228 (where the flag was reset) is a regression so not sure why you removed bug 1527178 from the regressed by field.

(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] (Bugzilla UX) (FxSiteCompat) from comment #2)

Looks like the definition of the qe-verify flag is about to change. See Bug 1528106.

That's been stalled for a month so not worth the regression in the meantime IMO since it's a 1 character fix to change in that bug.

Comment 4

[Emma Humphries, Bugmaster ☕️🎸🧞‍♀️✨ (she/they) [:emceeaich] (UTC-8) needinfo? me]

Very true, let's make that change.

Comment 5

[Kohei Yoshino]

This is not a regression because Bug 1527178 is a new feature. I’ll merge the PR now.

Comment 6

[Kohei Yoshino]

Merged to master.

Comment 7

[Matthew N. [:MattN]]

(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] (Bugzilla UX) (FxSiteCompat) from comment #5)

This is not a regression because Bug 1527178 is a new feature. I’ll merge the PR now.

New features can cause regressions so that argument doesn't make much sense. I could have summarized the bug as "qe-verify flag gets reset to '?' when I request an uplift with QA verification"… would you then agree that this is a regression?

Comment 8

[Kohei Yoshino]

Now I understand your point! (and the Regressed by field I’ve added works great)