Hi Thorsten,

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Thorsten Ziehm<[email protected]> wrote:
> Christian Lohmaier schrieb:
>> Maybe it wasn't clear enough - smoketestoo_native is not using
>> testtool or doing manual tests - This is a very short test that can be
>> done as part of building OpenOffice.org.
>> Maybe a bad name, since the former manual testing instructions were
>> also labeled "smoketests"
>> It consists of installing OOo into a temporary location, runnning OOo
>> and creating files from every app (writer, calc, impress...) - I
>> didn't have a closer look as to what else it does. But that it didn't
>> catch the installation issue is really sad. So we had a released
>> milestone that the user could not even launch.
> [...]
> The smoketest was created to identify broken applications before
> announce a master build 'ready to use'. Nothing more.

So how much more broken can an application be than not being able to
launch it at all?

> If you think more test cases should be implemented you are invited
> to do this or create a list of critical part for testing.

Again twisting my words. I do /not/ want more test. Since finding bugs
is not the problem I want to discuss in this thread at all.

> But a
> complex test will not be possible with the release engineers I think.

That is missing my point anyway.

> [...] To increase to
> every important testing area isn't the right case, I think.

I absolutely don't understand what you're trying to say.

My point (with the given examples) was: Automatic testing is not the
holy grail. Automatic testing did not find the majority of the
stoppers reported, did it?

Sad that the longer the thread goes, the more off-focus it gets, the
more the discussion is dragged to "Nebenschauplätze", the more often
excerpts are done without keeping the context :-(
(And no, doing a full-quote is *not* the same as keeping the context.)

ciao
Christian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to