Hi Oliver, > Do you have such tests? Those that are able to find more regressions > than they overlook?
Hmm? How do you measure *this*? If they find regressions, that's good. Every test will overlook some regressions. > Those that run only several hours not weeks like the > current ones? That's important indeed. If I have to wait several days betwen finishing my builds and passing the CWS to QA, just "because" of the test, this would certainly be a serious hurdle. Additionally, I'd like to raise the wish for "deterministic" tests. Our current testtool scripts not always fulfull this - the QA guys using it all day long will tell you there are tests which sometimes fail, but succeed the next time you run them. That'd be inacceptable for required tests. And, while I am at bashing the testtool :) (no pun intended): Tests are only useful if you are able to track down the problem with a reasonable effort. If the outcome of the test is "foo failed", but it takes you hours to just identify what foo this is, then the test is useless. Everybody who ever tried finding an error reported by the testtool knows that this is ... strictly important. All that said, I agree to what others have said here in the thread: If we had automatic tests which fulfill all those requirements, then I'm in for it - make them a pre-requisite for handing over the CWS to QA. However, I agree to you, Oliver, that our current tests might have some way to go for this ... Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
