NHN China Platform QA Team confirmed that CUBRID-Python 8.4.1 product has a good quality base on the scope in report to unveil for users.
Our gratitude goes to Li Cheng-Long as PM, Zhang Hui as Dev, QA team manager Hu Xiang-We, QA2 part Li Ying, Guo Rui and zoujing as tester.
Note: N/A.
Module change after the QA OK Sign should proceed in agreement with the QA personnel.
|
1. Quality Measurement Result | |||||
|
Functional Test |
Performance Test |
Security Test |
※ Describe test results as Pass, Fail, Not Executed, or N/A (N/A means not applicable to the project; and tests planned but not executed are classified into the Not Executed category) | ||
|
Pass |
Pass |
N/A | |||
|
Quality indicator at realization phase |
QA start conditions |
CUBRID-Perl-8.4.0 |
Remark | ||
|
Functional realization rate (%) |
100% |
100% |
1. python_cubrid.c code's lines are 956 | ||
|
# of source-code lines (LOC) |
- |
956 | |||
|
Unit test code coverage (%) |
70% |
72.19% | |||
|
# of critical errors at the static analysis |
N/A |
N/A | |||
|
Code complexity |
c10 or higher (%) |
N/A |
N/A | ||
|
c30 or higher (%) |
N/A |
N/A | |||
|
Coding standard conformance rate |
N/A |
N/A | |||
|
Quality indicator at QA test phase |
Quality objective |
QA test result |
| ||
|
Test case execution rate |
100% |
100% |
| ||
|
Test success rate |
100% |
99% |
Two cci bugs are active | ||
|
QA test code coverage |
70% |
78.5% |
| ||
|
Error correction completion rate |
100% |
100% |
| ||
|
No. of residual errors by criticality |
Blocker |
0 |
0 |
| |
|
Critical |
0 |
0 |
| ||
|
Major |
0 |
0 |
| ||
|
Minor |
0 |
0 |
| ||
|
Trivial |
0 |
0 |
| ||
|
Security vulnerability by risk rating (#) |
Critical |
N/A |
N/A |
| |
|
Major |
N/A |
N/A |
| ||
|
Minor |
N/A |
N/A |
| ||
|
Defect occurrence rate (All defects/KLOC) |
N/A |
N/A |
| ||
|
Residual defect rate (# of not-fixed defects/KLOC) |
N/A |
N/A |
| ||
|
Specifics of QA test defects |
QA Test Result |
Remark | |||
|
Overall information (Effective defect) |
Total |
7 |
Two cci bugs are active | ||
|
Active |
2 | ||||
|
Closed |
5 | ||||
|
Detailed information of closed defects (#) |
Fixed |
5 |
| ||
|
Won't Fix |
0 | ||||
|
Cannot reproduce |
0 | ||||
|
PostPoned |
2 | ||||
|
Roll back |
0 | ||||
|
PostPone |
0 | ||||
|
By design |
0 |
Not a Defect | |||
|
Duplicate |
0 | ||||
|
Not a Bug |
0 | ||||
|
Test tool defect |
0 | ||||
|
Test Environment |
0 | ||||
|
Tester error (mistake) |
0 | ||||
|
※ Describe the QA start conditions and quality objectives of QA test phase set during the planning; and enter reasons of not measuring or not following them. | |||||
|
2. Test result summary and QA comment | |||||
|
※ Summarize test results and briefly describe QA comments. | |||||
|
If functionality/performance/security tests are not done, the description should include the reasons of non-execution. | |||||
|
※ If not relevant, put N/A in the field (N/A means not applicable to the project). | |||||
|
Test Type |
Brief description of known key issues as per test results | ||||
|
Result of Functional Test |
Finished function test, 7 defects were reported , 5 defects were fixed, 2 defects were marked postponed status | ||||
|
Result of Performance Test |
Base on the scope in report, test result is : Pass | ||||
|
Known Issue |
2 defects were maked as postponed for the reason return values
by CCI were not correct | ||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||