"needs testing" label

[JohannesLorenz]

There's the "needs testing" label for PRs. Change requests:

• The label is unclear: Does the OP need a tester who looks at the code while testing (whitebox tester) or one who does not look at the code while testing (blackbox tester)? Both could be needed. Maybe the functional code-reader should define what parts of the code need whitebox testing, if any (e.g. another point on "Reviewing Pull Requests")?
• Any idea how we can offer a task lists for potential blackbox testers? That way, testers who want to help can easily find PRs. It's actually just a filter "needs testing" on all of our PRs, but I guess many testers don't even know that we have such a list of open PRs... We could open a meta-issue and pin it, but not sure if this will reach many testers.

One reason I ask this is because we have only few devs, but many testers (actually all issue writers, and we have many issues).

[Spekular]

I think blackbox testing is more relevant for the "needs testing" tag. Whitebox testing should be covered partly automatically (unit tests) and partly by those with competence + insight into the code (developers). That would leave blackbox testing as a more accessible option, meaning testers can be sourced from the userbase.

A list of PRs that need testing seems like it could be linked from the Reviewing Pull Requests page, perhaps? Unless someone wants to cook up a custom solution (lots of effort) I think we just need to point to the filtered issue list.

Perhaps we should also encourage PR authors to provide a list of things for testers to try. The "expected/actual behavior" segment of a bug report or feature request could be a good starting point for this. (eg if the bug report says "LMMS should not freeze when replacing mallets with another instrument", the testing list should say "try replacing mallets with another instrument").