= Validating an Issue
{F102, float, size=full} Reports that need to be validated, are in the column "New / Unconfirmed"
It is now up to you, to do a sanity check on this report.
First begin by claiming the issue.
(WIP-EDIT)
Things you should check in any case:
==== Duplicate
- Do we already have an issue handling this case?
search for a few relevant words that are related to that issue
==== Subject
- Does the subject describe the issue in short and have all information you need to recognize it?
==== Description
- Can you easily imagine and understand the steps you need to trigger the bug?
==== Priority
- Does it match the Priority classification matrix?
==== Gamemode
- Does the gamemode match the description?
==== Additionals
- Is there information about java-version or OS that may be required?
(Especially on issues with the launcher itself or weird error-messages)
==== Attached Files
- are files attached in a quickly accessible format?
Bad: .zip files instead of direct logs
Good: log.x.txt directly attached
But keep effort vs. use in mind!
Do not upload 5 logs of 4MB each when they are zipped only 500kb.
In this case, its easier to quote a part of the log (~20-30 lines) into the comment.
==== Client state
- Does the client seem to be unmodified?
Having someone state he has a fresh installation
and the startup tells there were 200 blueprints processed is easy to see,
and can really save a lot of work -
tell user to re-add logs of a Predictable Game State then
==== Category
- Can you set it to match a category?
This may also be added after reproducing it
= Looks good
Drag it into the "Open for Testing" column.
{F100, size=full}
= That does not make sense
Does the report lack some details you need to try it out in-game?
Or are you unsure if its related to a similar bug we know about already?
Read the [[ http://phab.starma.de/w/tester/issue_navigation/feedback/ | Feedback ]] section to see how you should request feedback from the user.
{F102, float} Reports that need to be validated, are in the column "New / Unconfirmed"
It is now up to you, to do a sanity check on this report.
By default the issues are not editable by you, as the edit policy defaults to "Author" only, the visibility is also limited to the author and workflow issue navigation.
= Claim
{F676, float}
First begin by claiming the issue.
Start by clicking on one of the cards in the column,
to open the "view task" screen.
Now scroll to the bottom of it and open the dropdown:
{F679, size=full}
Select "Reassign / Claim" and add youself in the field at the bottom.
This does not need a comment as you will do more changes right after this.
Now hit: {F681}
= Validation in detail
Click on "Edit task".
(This was grayed out before, and should be available now)
{F683, size=full, float}
Things you should check in any case:
==== Duplicate
- Do we already have an issue handling this case?
search for a few relevant words that are related to that issue
==== Subject
- Does the subject describe the issue in short and have all information you need to recognize it?
==== Description
- Can you easily imagine and understand the steps you need to trigger the bug?
==== Priority
- Does it match the Priority classification matrix?
==== Gamemode
- Does the gamemode match the description?
==== Additionals
- Is there information about java-version or OS that may be required?
(Especially on issues with the launcher itself or weird error-messages)
==== Attached Files
- are files attached in a quickly accessible format?
Bad: .zip files instead of direct logs
Good: log.x.txt directly attached
But keep effort vs. use in mind!
Do not upload 5 logs of 4MB each when they are zipped only 500kb.
In this case, its easier to quote a part of the log (~20-30 lines) into the comment.
==== Client state
- Does the client seem to be unmodified?
Having someone state he has a fresh installation
and the startup tells there were 200 blueprints processed is easy to see,
and can really save a lot of work -
tell user to re-add logs of a Predictable Game State then
==== Category
- Can you set it to match a category?
This may also be added after reproducing it
= Validation result: OK
Now head back to the top of the issue, and adjust the policy fields.
For **regular issues**, that should be open to public, adjust it this way:
{F685, size=full}
For **security relevant issues**, that should not be open to public, adjust it this way:
{F687, size=full}
Now hit {F689}
(bottom right corner)
Back in the header, click the "workflow issue navigation" to jump back into the workboard:
{F691, size=full}
Drag it into the "Open for Testing" column.
{F100, size=full}
Finally go back into the view mode, and detach the issue from you:
{F693}
Set the dropdown to "Reassign / Claim" again.
Hit the X beside your name, to remove it.
{F695, size= full}
Do not forget to click on {F697}
Sample History entry:
{F699, size=full}
= Validation result: Not OK
Does the report lack some details you need to try it out in-game?
Or are you unsure if its related to a similar bug we know about already?
Read the [[ http://phab.starma.de/w/tester/issue_navigation/feedback/ | Feedback ]] section to see how you should request feedback from the user.