Good point! I agree that these portlets are easily broken. We'll need to come up with some plans to automate them.
I'll look into possibilities of automating them along with the Selenium IDE that David J suggested. Lin On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That reminds me... Security realms portlet is broken yet again. Editing a > realm does not work :( > > ++Vamsi > > > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Some automated testcases which will make sure Admin Console portlets are > not broken: > > (the ones I can think of immediately from a Deployment perspective:) > > 1) DB Manager > > 2) Database Pools > > 3) Security Realms > > 4) JMS Resources > > 5) Plan Creator > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Shiva > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Lin Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am interested in collecting ideas on how we can improve user > > > experience with the geronimo 2.x server, particularly, what type of > > > testing we can do for each geronimo major release to identify probs > > > and resolve them. > > > > > > I think it would be nice to have a set of test (either automated or > > > manually) other than tck that we run to verify various functions in > > > geronimo for each major release. Currently, we probably only run a > > > very small amount of testing other than tck, our automated testing > > > during the build and the few samples we have. > > > > > > One thought is to add more test samples. Seems to me people are > > > trying different things with geronimo server and most of the stuff > > > they tried are not covered by our samples. Any ideas what other > > > samples may be good to work with geronimo? > > > > > > The other thought is to grow test cases from our JIRA system or users. > > > Encourage folks to attach/contribute their test cases. > > > > > > Also, what g functions do folks think we need more testing? > > > > > > Thanks, Lin > > > > > > > > > > >
