@Maxim: That is really great! I am looking at the Test that fails but I have not found out yet why it fails. I need to clean my workspace and Ivy unfortunatelly as it seems.
Sebastian 2013/3/26 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > 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 tests are just outdated.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 > -- Sebastian Wagner https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock http://www.webbase-design.de http://www.wagner-sebastian.com [email protected]
