Here is the JUnit report of the latest trunk https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/build/junit/report/index.html
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]>wrote: > 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, [email protected] < > [email protected]> 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 tests are just outdated.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 <[email protected]> >> >> > 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, [email protected] < >> > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > > >> > > > 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 >> > > [email protected] >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > WBR >> > Maxim aka solomax >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Sebastian Wagner >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >> http://www.webbase-design.de >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >> [email protected] >> > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
