Closed Bug 1573544 Opened 5 years ago Closed 8 months ago

[tests] minimal test plan for webapp

Categories

(Tecken :: General, task, P2)

Product:
Tecken
Component:
General
Type:
task

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: willkg, Assigned: willkg)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

The webapp is almost entirely written in JS and has no test coverage. Last week, we updated date-fn which broke the Uploads page, but didn't know until I went to use the Uploads page and discovered it wasn't working.

While the webapp isn't critical, we should have some test coverage to help us know when things are broken.

This bug covers writing a minimal manual test plan for the webapp.

Making this a P3. I don't think I'm going to get to it soon.

Probably best to have the test plan go in the docs for now.

Priority: -- → P3

Moving to Tecken product.

Component: Tecken → General
Product: Socorro → Tecken
Summary: minimal test plan for webapp → [tests] minimal test plan for webapp

We need a test plan for the webapp to use during the GCP migration. Making this a P2 to do.

The test plan can be either:

  1. a manual plan codified as a Confluence page, a Google doc, or a Markdown document in the repository that goes through the steps and expected outcomes
  2. some automated test system that performs the steps and passes/fails

It might make sense to start with the first one and then build the second.

Priority: P3 → P2

I can recommend Playwright as the e2e test framework. This is what the Firefox Accounts team uses currently.

I can take this. I'll do a minimal manual test plan and throw it in the docs.

Assignee: nobody → willkg
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

I put together a minimal test plan in Confluence: https://mozilla-hub.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CS1/pages/603193429/Webapp+manual+test+plan

This allows us to add screen shots which get stale, but will probably help orient the person going through the test plan.

Sven: Does that look ok for a first pass?

Flags: needinfo?(sven)

Thanks! This is looking good to me. I went through the test plan for the stage environment. Everything was clear and worked as described.

Maybe we could include uploading a symbols file in the manual tests?

Flags: needinfo?(sven)

I'm almost positive no one uses that upload form. I've never used it myself. It's in my list of things to look into and then remove if the theory is true. I omitted testing that because I thought it wasn't worth testing.

I'll write up a bug to evaluate whether the upload symbols form is used and if not, remove the functionality from the webapp.

OK, sounds good to me. For what it's worth, I tested uploading symbols a few times, and I always used upload-sym.py – maybe because that is what I found first, but I also think it's just more convenient than using a web form.

I think this ticket is done.

I wrote up bug #1883358 to consider removing the upload symbols form in the webapp. Closing this out.

Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.