Hello Sebastian, I'm ready to commit changed build.xml performing JUnit tests oon each build Unfortunatelly currently 1 test is failed:
TestHashMapSession testHashMapSession Failure expected:<0> but was:<1> Can you please take a look at it? (trunk) On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya) > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the > community to help us testing. > > *1) there were no issues reported by users* > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I also > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to > test. > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months* > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete => > release". That model will not work for our future. > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that. > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current > project. > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now. > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits missing > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what > keeps us away from doing that? > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the > tests are just outdated. > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just > zero tests run automated. > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests. > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody else > involved has done for 2.1 > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ... > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in > any sense. Every release does need a full test. > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of > committers. > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve > that in the future? > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ? > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature" > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective. > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of manual > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?! > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and clicking > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?! > > Sebastian > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya) > > additional causes are: > > 1) there were no issues reported by users > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have > 2-3 > > month > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < > > seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on > > > already happen? > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC? > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings > 2.1.0 > > > RC3 > > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel > > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme: > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README > > > > > > > > Full Changelog: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG > > > > > > > > Release artefacts: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/ > > > > > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/ > > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E): > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS > > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > > > My vote is +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > WBR > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sebastian Wagner > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > > http://www.webbase-design.de > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > > seba.wag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WBR > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > seba.wag...@gmail.com > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
