Just curious, what kind of web test framework are you going to use?
-D On 10/18/06, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Next week, I'll start implementation of UI tests for all screens. Emmanuel Jason van Zyl a écrit : > > On 17 Oct 06, at 2:34 PM 17 Oct 06, Brett Porter wrote: > >> I agree with Emmanuel. IIRC, the profiles are already in the model, >> and basic choice of which JDK and maven/ant installation to use should >> be straightforward and extremely useful. I agree that making it more >> pervasive and using the toolchain support would be even better, but I >> don't believe it needs to wait for that. >> > > I would be against any more radical changes until the testing setup is > rock solid. We're slipping in this area. We don't really know what > machines this stuff runs on and I don't think anything is automated > anymore. We need to stop paying lip service to what we are preaching. > > Jason. > >> - Brett >> >> On 18/10/2006, at 12:54 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: >> >>> The introduction of continuum profiles isn't impacted by the >>> DefaultContinuum refactoring. >>> If we don't provide a full continuum profiles implementation in 1.1, >>> I think we can do a minimal one with only the possibility to choose >>> the maven1/maven2/ant/java home directories and use them instead of >>> using maven/ant/mvn/java from the PATH. This feature isn't big to do. >>> >>> In 1.1, I'd like to see the possibility to choose in build >>> definitions if a project is built with an update (like it's done >>> actually) or with a clean checkout. >>> >>> The last point, I'd like to see in 1.1 is the dependency/parent >>> change build-trigger. >>> >>> All these features are awaited by users since a long time. I don't >>> think the implementation will take lot of time, so they can be add in >>> 1.1. >>> >>> Of course, we need a database migration tool for the release too. >>> >>> Emmanuel >>> >>> Jesse McConnell a écrit : >>>> I was going to try and wrap my head about what needed to get wrapped >>>> up for a 1.1 release of continuum this week when I got to talking to >>>> emmanuel this morning. >>>> I had been under the impression that we were getting near a point that >>>> we might want to polish things up and cut a 1.1 release but emm was >>>> thinking that we ought to have another big push for new features >>>> before we start polishing things up. So I told him I would mention >>>> our talk and see what kinda interest we got from people on new >>>> features and who might want to tackle what in the short term, or if we >>>> wanted to put some things out into the longer term bin. >>>> One of the major things that I had been thinking we would push off to >>>> the 1.2 release was the profiles. Its a slightly overridden term as >>>> it has little to do with maven profiles, but in my mind at least the >>>> profiles were going to be 1/3 of a trinity by which builds could be >>>> setup to run. >>>> The trinity being: profile (maven instance, env vars, maven profiles, >>>> jdk instance, etc), temporal ( scheduled cron, when dependency >>>> changes, scm activity, etc) and the project group (bundle of >>>> projects). I was figuring that those three things taken together >>>> ought meet the requirements for building what, where and when. It >>>> would be a matter of setting up the permutations of those three >>>> components, for example: 2 profiles, 1 schedule, 1 project group would >>>> make 2 instances of schedulable FOO. >>>> Anyway, I digress...profiles would be one large feature that would be >>>> wonderful to have in continuum, sooner the better. But it would be >>>> pretty massive effects on the codebase. So massive that I would think >>>> we ought to consider splitting up the DefaultContinuum object into the >>>> workflows that have been kicked around, making things like 'Add >>>> Project To Project Group' extensible by users so they can trigger any >>>> other processes they might want running on those events. Trygve has >>>> some definite ideas in this area, perhaps using the plexus-spe code. >>>> The actions in continuum have been a first pass attempt at starting to >>>> break things out of the DC object which is pretty big atm. >>>> If we were going to rip the top off of the DefaultContinuum object and >>>> add/modify in the profile concepts into the store then we really ought >>>> to clean up the whole store api which is more painful to work with >>>> then it really should be. joakim and I had a lot of success with >>>> structuring things nicely in the plexus-security jdo stores and we >>>> could probably apply a ton of the concepts there in terms of api to >>>> the continuum-store and make it scads easier to work with. >>>> and on and on. >>>> I agree with Emmanuel that since 1.1 as it currently stands is not >>>> backwards compatible (I think) with the old database we ought to just >>>> add in what we need now...But doing this will definitely move out a >>>> 1.1 release into the new year...and is that something we want to do? >>>> I dunno really, personally I would be cool with adding in profiles and >>>> refactoring the core chunks of continuum up now and get it over with, >>>> but does anyone else have anything to say on the matter? I know we >>>> have had a lot more interest recently by folks like rahul and >>>> christian on participating, would you guys be interested in taking on >>>> some of these challenges with us? Theres nothing like ripping through >>>> the guts of code to really get involved :) >>>> thoughts? should we open this out to the users list maybe? >>>> jesse >> > > > >
