735
edits
Aircraft testing checklist: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add test procedure
No edit summary |
(Add test procedure) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For aircraft in FGaddon which have been claimed for testing, see the [[aircraft_tester_list|tester list]] | For aircraft in FGaddon which have been claimed for testing, see the [[aircraft_tester_list|tester list]] | ||
= Test Procedure = | |||
Claim an aircraft, by adding your name and the aircraft to the [[aircraft_tester_list|tester list]]. Then do a test flight going through the steps below. Then open a ticket (one per aircraft!) in the tracker with any failures / issues. (You don’t need to list the things that worked, just the things that didn’t) | |||
Some important details: | |||
The ticket should have the following set | |||
* milestone=2020.2 | |||
* set the label ‘aircraft-qa’ | |||
* if the aircraft does /not/ have maintainer, add a label ‘nomaintainer’ | |||
If we do this, it’s easier make some ticket searches to see what aircraft have open issues, and which aircraft are abandoned. | |||
If the aircraft has an obvious active maintainer, it would be excellent to point them at the ticket | |||
General points: | |||
* we’re not so interested in issues ’smaller’ than the ones on this list, broadly. If the fuel cap is in the wrong place for the 1972 model of the Piper Archer, that’s something to take up with the aircraft maintainer or learn how to fix yourself :) This is about getting a decent number of aircraft verified as being in a useful/flyable state, not about collecting a huge amount of trivial defects which will never get fixed. | |||
* The list is not exhaustive: if the Harrier can’t take off vertically, or a water-bomber can’t pick up water, those are ‘big’ issues for that aircraft, despite not being on the testing list. | |||
* check the aircraft help, since it might list known issues / limitations. (“Fuel consumption is not accurate’, etc) | |||
* for aircraft which are actively under development / maintained, someone still can test them, but apply common sense, Eg if you know the F-15 or A320 is developed in an upstream repository, probably just file any issues in the tracker for that aircraft repo (if it exists), no need to waste people’s time duplicating them into the SF Tracker. | |||
* you’re not allowed to pick the UFO or OGEL to test ;) | |||
* If you encounter an issue which you suspect is generic to all of FlightGear, report it as normal in the tracker, or ask about it here - don’t bury it in the aircraft testing report. | |||
= Metadata = | = Metadata = | ||