Validation tests for protoDC2 #30
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
For each validation test I created an issue in https://github.com/LSSTDESC/descqa/issues so that we can keep track of individual progress without spamming this repo. |
|
Apologies if I am missing something - I am traveling back home today and my ability to keep up with e-mail and slack etc. is not all there. There's an epic here and there's an epic in the descqa repo with a similar name. What is their relationship / how do you envision they will be used? |
|
Sorry, I am trying to clean this up --
The #30 was introduced a while ago following the idea that we need to
track what is now table 7 in planning document. With that epic, a few
validation tests were introduced in the DC2_repo. Yao decided that it's
better to have the tests in descqa instead of DC2_repo, so the issues
got duplicated.
Since Yao is doing a great job in managing the validation issues, I want
to close the issues in the DC2_repo. But at the same time, the DC2_repo
will still be used for tracking and the progress_repo. So I do need the
connection to the descqa repo.
The connection is now the two epics. The DC2_repo is basically now only
there for allowing the track the descqa repo epic. So we will keep both
epics but only the descqa repo will be meaningful.
If I understood all instructions from Phil/Anders correctly, this will
hopefully work ... ;-)
If not, I have to do something different.
But short summary: yes, I am aware of the two epics and trying to make
sure they are not confusing.
…On 12/14/17 4:12 PM, Rachel Mandelbaum wrote:
Apologies if I am missing something - I am traveling back home today
and my ability to keep up with e-mail and slack etc. is not all there.
There's an epic here and there's an epic in the descqa repo with a
similar name. What is their relationship / how do you envision they
will be used?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#30 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMQ9jNqEw1FOfh3CEaAjCz3UgMtd7Jaeks5tAZ1QgaJpZM4QPBpF>.
|
|
Looks good. It still contains two DC2_Repo issues (in addition to the descqa issues). Are you planning to keep them? I don't mind - just curious. |
|
not done yet -- get interrupted here all the time. :-)
I wanted to close the two issues and just make a note that they are in
the descqa issue now. Give me a couple of minutes ... All done now. Scores will be assigned to what will be determined as "required tests" (CS will work with Rachel and the analysis working groups on that classification) and then I might even drop the once that are not required from the DC2_repo tracking. I think we are good now. Learned something new today.
…On 12/14/17 4:35 PM, awborgland wrote:
Looks good. It still contains two DC2_Repo issues (in addition to the
descqa issues). Are you planning to keep them? I don't mind - just
curious.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#30 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMQ9jElkKE55pJPK43WDZLywHu9P_Ollks5tAaK5gaJpZM4QPBpF>.
|
|
@katrinheitmann , I think I was multitasking with one too many tasks yesterday. Why didn't you just include the descqa Epic itself, instead of all the issues individually? That way you will automatically 'include' any new issues that are attached to the descqa epic. When you include an epic, you get an option of displaying all the issues in that epic so you will still be able to see all the underlying issues. |
|
I actually added the issues to the DESCQA epic -- I thought the idea is
to have issues underneath an epic? Then the DC2_repo epic just
automatically picked them up (in other words, I did not in fact added
the issues to the DC2_repo epic). Maybe what you are not "happy" with is
that in the descqa repo I added each issue to two epics now ...? I am
happy to undo that if that will still give us the burn-down chart in the
DC2_repo. I'll look into it later ...
…On 12/15/17 8:32 AM, awborgland wrote:
@katrinheitmann <https://github.com/katrinheitmann> , I think I was
multitasking with one too many tasks yesterday. Why didn't you just
include the descqa Epic itself, instead of all the issues
individually? That way you will automatically 'include' any new issues
that are attached to the descqa epic. When you include an epic, you
get an option of displaying all the issues in that epic so you will
still be able to see all the underlying issues.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#30 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMQ9jEz8iJuJJ5LZzGJj8tQ7YHPICcObks5tAoMWgaJpZM4QPBpF>.
|
|
What I had in mind is 1/ Add descqa issues to descqa epic The advantage with that is that as more descqa issues are added to the descqa epic, the DC2 epic will automatically pick them up through the descqa epic (and people will only have to remember to assign an issue to one epic, not two, especially since assigning a descqa issue to the DC2 epic means using ZenHub to connect the two repos). This would minimize the chance of the two epics being out of synch and should be completely equivalent to assigning each issue to both epics including, I think, being able to use the burndown chart in DC2 on the descqa epic, but you're right that you should verify that. What a convoluted sentence. I need a second double espresso. |
|
I am closing this issue -- all the work has gone over into the descqa repo and not much is being updated here so might as well close it. If anybody feels differently, feel free to reopen. |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: