So the only ways to validate a configuration are: 1. Have a deep and intimate understanding of the dependencies by examining the source code and comparing to the actual configuration, or 2. Have and run (up to date!) exhaustive unit and integration testing against the JavaScript functionality?
It seems like this approach places a rather large burden on whoever configures the system, don't you think? We're talking about an awful lot of code here! One alternative would be to explicitly document the chain of dependencies at some level. If the system is misconfigured (a component is missing), what sort of diagnostic will I get? Do we have the sort of testing code that would be required to validate a configuration? Thanks, Paul Paul Hanchett ------------------- Infotainment Engineer MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor, Portland, Oregon, 97204 Email: [email protected] ------------------- Business Details: Jaguar Land Rover Limited Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF Registered in England No: 1672070 On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ylinen, Mikko <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Hanchett, Paul < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> So, there's no explicit rpm dependency on AMB-- That's understandable in >> light of the fact that what's actually attached to Dbus or AMB is >> configurable. >> >> That said, how does one know what must be configured for the javascript >> objects to >> >> 1. Be callable without error >> 2. Actually work correctly (assuming that the javascript does >> something even if lower level components are missing or misconfigured.) >> >> I'm afraid the only answer is: check the source code of the reference > implementation. > > -- Mikko >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
