Hi Shaun, see my comments inline.
Shaun McDonald wrote: > > If vcltesttoolglue has been designed using the MVC pattern then I would > > recommend using JSP. This would allow for a reuse of the model code. I > > have used this previously in a project. After the initial planning both > > the server (web interface) and the Java application worked well together > > with good code reuse between the server and client. The programming was > > also simpler once you got your head around the idea of having the code > > and display different. AFAIK vcltesttoolglue is only designed to give automated testers an easy to interpret overview and display of testtool results (offline and local) and wasn't developed as an approach to create an interface between a web-application and testtool. Best would be TBO states hist tooling....I will ask him to do so. > > What is the current status of the CVS to SVN switch? Would it be better > > to wait for that to use the SVN version numbers? It was decided to switch to SVN and it is expected this summer. Further details are not known to me... > > And what happens if someone is running offline? They should still be > > able to upload the results later, possibly from another machine. The > > fact a test has been done offline or online could make a difference for > > some of them, therefore it should be stored. Of course...the possibility to upload offline results must be given. The results are already stored locally. In the future the path where the results should be stored is configurable in testtool environment. > > Please elaborate on what you mean by an autotest. It sounds very similar > > to a testcase. No, it is not similar. The bas-file is the autotest as a whole. It contains the include-files which again holds the testcases. An autotest has been passed if all testcases in include-files belong to this test are fine. > > Is this CWS/MWS information stored in all builds by default? Is it > > stored in the result files currently? Please explain to me what you mean ? What I meant with comparing MWS and CWS results is: Assume we have a CWS with some bugfixes that have to be verified. This can be done by running some automated tests on this CWS. For example: To avoid regression after integration of a CWS (based e.g. on a MWS with minor m200) you have to assure that all results created by autotests in CWS are the same or better on MWS (based on Minor m200). So you have to run autotests on both CWS and MWS. > > I'm now just hoping that I will actually have time to do system design > > and implementation. I'd be happy to work with Thorsten (not sure which > > one) to bring both these two projects together. Please attend that meanwhile another project called 'OpenTCM' was announced on this list. They are checking if it is possible to do an implementation of automated tests also. Feedback from Petr Dudacheck is pending -- Regards Helge --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
