on a branch? ;) On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Awesomesauce. Going to move forward then (with putting back the > accidentally deleted test). If there's other things missed, they can be > brought back as well. > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > I see no situation where we don't want a feature branch vetted by >1 > person > > before we land anything on master …short of fixing broken tests. > > > > I assume good faith. Joe: you had a bad day and, I think, you still feel > > mistrust after previous commits landing on master stalling out your work > > last summer. Lets put that behind us. > > > > Andrew pls fire a ping to the list w/ a PR for anything aiming to live on > > Android master until earn Joe's trust back. And lets avoid the editorial > > about motivations. We all want the same thing here: work on a kick ass > open > > source project that makes a difference. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > This commit may not have warranted this discussion. > > > I think we agree that large changes/commits should be on feature > > branches, > > > and discussed before being merged. > > > Let's go with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Sounds like you've been having a rough time. :( Hope you get through > > it. > > > > > > > > Believe me when I say I hear you loud and clear about making changes > on > > > > feature branches. I just don't think this one fits. > > > > - No one (other than me) has touched the tests since September of > last > > > > year, so it's unlikely that a change would cause merge conflicts. > > > > - The state of the tests show that they are not viewed as that > > important > > > > (at least not important enough for anyone other than me to have been > > > > working on them) > > > > - Anything I do to them doesn't affect shipping code. No risk. > > > > > > > > I find it hard to believe that my making changes contributes in a > > > > significant way to having people avoid working on Android. Perhaps > > being > > > > overly abrasive via email & JIRA would be a deterrent though... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 7:44:52 AM Andrew Grieve < > agri...@chromium.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I agree that significant changes should be reviewed first. But for > > the > > > >> most > > > >>> part Cordova is a review-after-commit kind of place, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> No, it's not. Cordova is only like that because you consistently > make > > > it > > > >> like that. Constantly committing to master without any review at > all > > > makes > > > >> it next to impossible for anyone else to work on the project. You > can > > > tell > > > >> that this is the case, because you own the majority of the commits > > over > > > the > > > >> last few months. That's not normal for a codebase this size with > this > > > many > > > >> contributors. This is why we have topic branches, and we've had > this > > > >> discussion with you numerous times about using them. This is also > > why I > > > >> write e-mails trying to get buy-in to what I want to do instead of > > just > > > >> landing features straight on master that could break everything. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> and this change didn't > > > >>> touch any code that we release (strictly tests... that have been > > broken > > > >> for > > > >>> a very long time), so I don't think it qualifies. > > > >> I'll admit that the tests were a bit of the wild west. That said, > > there > > > >> was always an understanding that tests would be added to and > improved > > > upon > > > >> and not removed. Marcel and I probably wouldn't have had half the > > > e-mails > > > >> that we have had if it wasn't us arguing over whether to delete > tests. > > > >> > > > >> I know it's frustrating to have to wait on other people, since > people > > > are > > > >> human, get sick, and have to take care of others when they're sick. > > > That > > > >> said, it's equally frustrating to come back from vacation, or wake > up > > > from > > > >> a nap after driving someone from the hospital and see that critical > > code > > > >> that was a major issue only six months ago got accidentally removed > > in a > > > >> sweeping change, along with other use cases. That's what happened > > > >> yesterday, and that's why I got frustrated. If I'm having a bad day > > > >> already, a random refactor that just gets dropped without at least a > > > head's > > > >> up beforehand makes it worse. > > > >> > > > >> I've been on both sides of the issue with this. I remember getting > > > >> extremely frustrated with Bryce when we designed CordovaWebView, > > > especially > > > >> since my design had less of a change to the code. I thought things > > were > > > >> moving too slowly, but at the end of the day we did produce > something > > > that > > > >> a lot of people seem to use (at least that's what the sample repo I > > > have on > > > >> GitHub tells me, the GitHub analytics tools are all I have to go > on). > > > That > > > >> said, we didn't ship that until it was mostly ready, and other than > an > > > >> awkward presentation at PhoneGap Day, it was mostly fine. I'm glad > I > > > >> didn't just merge my crap in and just unilaterally introduce that > > > feature, > > > >> since back then we could still get away with that technically. > > > >> > > > >> But yeah, can we have things on feature branches if they're that > big, > > > and > > > >> then wait maybe 24 hours before dropping something like that? I'm > not > > > >> talking like a simple JIRA fix, but something that large should have > > > been a > > > >> pull request or on its own branch or something. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> You may or may not, but I think it would be nice to let others > > review > > > >>> your > > > >>>> (significant) changes before dumping them to master. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> +1 Revert > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> And please let's stop deleting what other people wrote just > > because > > > >> we > > > >>>>>> don't recognize it. These things should require discussion. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Bit of a jump to conclusions, don't you think? What makes you > > think I > > > >>>> don't > > > >>>>> recognize the code I changed? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> @purplecabbage > > > >>>>>> risingj.com > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think we should revert this refactor. With the new > refactored > > > >>> tests, > > > >>>>>>> they may pass but we lost a lot of the useful tests that we > once > > > >> had > > > >>>> and > > > >>>>>>> these new tests have no value. I don't know why you took it > upon > > > >>>>>> yourself > > > >>>>>>> to throw away all the JUnit tests that didn't pass, but that > > misses > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>>> point. I would have rather had the old tests expanded upon > > instead > > > >>> of > > > >>>>>> just > > > >>>>>>> deleted on your personal whim. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I honestly don't know what to say, I know that we have a > terrible > > > >>>> working > > > >>>>>>> relationship at best, but this actually is making the project > > worse > > > >>>>>>> intentionally for unknown reasons. In fact, I would almost say > > > >> that > > > >>>> this > > > >>>>>>> is purely a malicious change driven by ego, since I can't see a > > > >>>> technical > > > >>>>>>> reason for any of it. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 1:36:19 PM Joe Bowser < > bows...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I think there's a lot of value in the Unit Tests, having wrote > > the > > > >>>>>>>> majority of them initially. If I wasn't dealing with everyone > > in > > > >> my > > > >>>>>>> house > > > >>>>>>>> getting sick, I'd check to make sure these tests were still > > > >> testing > > > >>>>>> what > > > >>>>>>> I > > > >>>>>>>> intended them to test, since we have a habit of losing the > > intent > > > >>>>>> behind > > > >>>>>>>> the test every time we do a refactor. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Of course, if we're going to throw away the embedded WebView > > case, > > > >>>> then > > > >>>>>>>> maybe there's not value after all. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 1:12:29 PM Andrew Grieve < > > > >>> agri...@chromium.org> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Does travis provide Android emulators? I'd guess it'd be too > > slow > > > >>> to > > > >>>>>> put > > > >>>>>>>>> on > > > >>>>>>>>> Travis. And honestly, there's still not a lot of value in the > > > >> unit > > > >>>>>> tests > > > >>>>>>>>> atm. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Murat Sutunc < > > > >>> mura...@microsoft.com > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is great news! > > > >>>>>>>>>> I've finally got the android travis enabled too. We have > > jshint > > > >>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>> jasmine test coverage on every commit now. ( > > > >>>>>>>>>> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/cordova-android/builds/50295748) > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Now that we're passing all junit tests, I think the next > step > > > >> for > > > >>> us > > > >>>>>>>>>> should be to integrate junit tests with travis. What do you > > > >> think? > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>>>>>> From: agri...@google.com [mailto:agri...@google.com] On > > Behalf > > > >> Of > > > >>>>>>>>> Andrew > > > >>>>>>>>>> Grieve > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:14 PM > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: dev > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Android JUnit Tests Now Pass > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Spent some time cleaning up the tests. Certainly they could > be > > > >>> made > > > >>>>>>> even > > > >>>>>>>>>> better & made to test more things, but at least they pass > now > > :) > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Much of the change was deleting copy & paste, and deleting > > > >>> commented > > > >>>>>>> out > > > >>>>>>>>>> tests: > > > >>>>>>>>>> 53 files changed, 941 insertions(+), 2610 deletions(-) > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
