Community
Participate
Working Groups
There is a usability defect opened against the TPTP bugzilla system https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=147998 TPTP end users are complaining that the TPTP bugzilla component to choose from when opening a TPTP defect are overwhelming. We have about 80 components and it is not clear from thei description or name to what function they mapp. Also, having the large number of components it is even hard to navigate the compoentns combobox to look for a match. In an effort to improve the user experience when reporting a TPTP bug or enhancement, I propose to have a high level components grouping the existing TPTP bugzilla The idea is to have an intermediate page where high level components ( and their description ) are made available. We'll group the existing bugzilla components under the umbrella of these groups. See attached document for high level documents proposal
Created attachment 52517 [details] proposed high level TPTP components
Setting Whiteboard to 'PMC' to flag this defect as required to be approved by the PG group
A couple of comments: A) The API Recorder (see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=119688) will be included as part of TPTP V4.3 as a Technology Preview (see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=156416). As such, a new component is needed to maintain consistency with the other Technology Preview components (e.g. BtM and LLC). For example: API Recorder - API recorder to record Java API invocations to create tests - technical preview 1) Test.Agents.Recorder mddunn@us.ibm.com B) Although updates to the TPTP Matrix and Bugzilla component owners for the Test project will be handled under https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=159167, here is any updated list: 1) Test.UI jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 2) Test.UI.TestPerspective jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 3) Test.UI.URLTest mddunn@us.ibm.com 4) Test.UI.Manual paules@ca.ibm.com 5) Test.UI.ManualTestClient paules@ca.ibm.com 6) Test.UI.JUnit jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 7) Test.UI.AutoGUIRunner amehrega@ca.ibm.com 8) Test.Execution.AutoGUIRunner amehrega@ca.ibm.com 9) Test.UI.FrameworkEditors jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 10) Test.UI.DatapoolEditor jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 11) Test.UI.ConfigEditors jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 12) Test.UI.Charting sleeloy@ca.ibm.com 13) Test.UI.Reporting jerome.gout@fr.ibm.com 14) Platform.UI.Reporting sleeloy@ca.ibm.com 15) Test.Execution kdsiefke@us.ibm.com 16) Test.Execution.URLRunner kdsiefke@us.ibm.com 17) Test.Execution.ManualRunner paules@ca.ibm.com 18) Test.Execution.JUnitRunner jptoomey@us.ibm.com 19) Test.Execution.ExecutionHarness jptoomey@us.ibm.com 20) Test.Execution.CommonRunner jptoomey@us.ibm.com 21) Test.Agents mddunn@us.ibm.com 22) Test.Agents.ComptestAgent jptoomey@us.ibm.com 23) Test.Agents.Recorder mddunn@us.ibm.com 24) Test.Analysis jptoomey@us.ibm.com 25) Platform.Model sluiman@ca.ibm.com 26) Test.Doc ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com 27) Test.Web ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com 28) Test.UI.CodeCoverage Eugene Chan C) Change the Testing components description to: Testing - TPTP Manual, JUnit/JUnit Plug-oin, URL and AGR tests
Regarding comments #3 : A) the Is there any reason other for the API Recorder to be a separate high level component other than the fact that this is a tech preview ? My opinion is to have this function grouped under the Test umbrella. The goal is to provide a high level easy to follow functional components and not to mapp into GA-technical preview functions. Note that for the same reason, AGR doesn't have a main component. BTM and LLC are top level components because they cannot be logically grouped under any other existing functions and not because they are tech previews B) Updated document attached below
Created attachment 52525 [details] update with Paul's comments
(In reply to comment #4) > A) the Is there any reason other for the API Recorder to be a separate high > level component other than the fact that this is a tech preview ? > My opinion is to have this function grouped under the Test umbrella. The goal > is to provide a high level easy to follow functional components and not to mapp > into GA-technical preview functions. Note that for the same reason, AGR doesn't > have a main component. > BTM and LLC are top level components because they cannot be logically grouped > under any other existing functions and not because they are tech previews Agreed. My concern was solely with consistency.
okay; and you get 10 extra points for being able to parse my convoluted comments :)
+1
Please add the following component under Perfmon: Platform.Doc ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com Please add the following components under Build To Manage: Monitor.Agents george.christelis@scapatech.com Monitor.Doc ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com Monitor.Web ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com Please add the following components under GLA: Monitor.Doc ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com Monitor.Web ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com
Dave, done; see document attached below Comment for Dave : This doc component is currently under the BtM section 4) Trace.Doc ruthdaly@ca.ibm.com Let me know if it should be moved out
Created attachment 52548 [details] updated with Dave's comments
Regarding comment https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=161969#c10, please leave Trace.Doc in BTM as the ARM documentation is included in that component.
The Trace owners looks good. On the LLC - why do we have that as a seperate component vs. rolling it under Profiling tools?
Valentina, I believe you missed the additions to the GLA section. Also, I just realized that the majority of the Log Analyzer documentation is in platform doc plugins so you should add Platform.Doc under it.
For comment #13 Guru, From a user perspective, LLC is not perceived as a profiling function although it does use piAgent, probekit from the profiling side of the spec.. LLC is more for testing code coverage rather than profiling. During the f2f meeting we decided that clearly can't go under Profiling and it doesn't seem to fit the bill for a Test component. For comment #14 Dave, I've modified GLA - good catch, see next attachment For the LA docs, don;t you think it should be confusing for a user to see two doc sections under LA ?.. My proposal: let's keep only one and the component owner ( Ruth in both cases :) can move defects around
Created attachment 52553 [details] second update from Dave - GLA glitch
Valentina, your second point in comment 15 is a good one. I agree. In that case you can remove Trace.Doc under BtM so it only has one documentation component.
Created attachment 52568 [details] removed Trace.Doc from BtM
PMC/PG approval result : +1 - 5 -1 - none abstain - 3 With a majority of votes I consider this request approved by the TPTP PG/PMC Updating dashborad with PMC_approved Hubert, once you have time please go ahead and apply the changes
As of Jan 22, the TPTP bugzilla setup has been updated as described in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=52568. There have some some feedbacks on the udpate after the bugzilla set up changes. I have opened another bug (bug 171596) to track the 2nd phase of the changes.
As of TPTP 4.6.0, TPTP is in maintenance mode and focusing on improving quality by resolving relevant enhancements/defects and increasing test coverage through test creation, automation, Build Verification Tests (BVTs), and expanded run-time execution. As part of the TPTP Bugzilla housecleaning process (see http://wiki.eclipse.org/Bugzilla_Housecleaning_Processes), this enhancement/defect is verified/closed by the Project Lead since this enhancement/defect has been resolved and unverified for more than 1 year and considered to be fixed. If this enhancement/defect is still unresolved and reproducible in the latest TPTP release (http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/downloads/), please re-open.
