Hi,
On 10.01.2014 10:36, Ruediger Gad wrote:
Hi,
I agree as well.
Having a quicker way to check at least simple requirements would greatly
improve the developer experience as well as the work of the testers at
Harbour.
I filed a request about this at together.jolla.com:
https://together.jolla.com/question/13023/harbour-toolautomatism-for-quickly-checking-simple-compliance-requirements/
That's a duplicate request... see current answer here:
https://together.jolla.com/question/1593/integrate-qa-testing-scripts-with-sailfish-sdk/#post-id-8663
br
Reto
This is not intended as complaint but as a request to improve things.
I think, having a quicker way to check compliance would not only benefit
us developers but would also ease the work of the testers at Harbour as
they would not need to complain about simple "standard" issues that often.
Besides, I just got an app rejected again (after about two days) because
I missed one path that was not according to the XDG requirements.
Yeah, I know, I should have looked more thoroughly (I actually grepped
through all my sources but somehow still managed to miss that one
thing.) but in that case a tool that I could run or a pre-check that is
run automatically after uploading an *.rpm to Harbour would have been great.
Best regards,
Ruediger
On 01/10/2014 09:01 AM, Andreas Enbacka wrote:
I would like to agree with Franck on this. I have also partly held off
developing for SailfishOS due to e.g., the Harbour process, as well as
due to APIs my apps need to are not allowed. I think that in case Jolla
wants developers to focus on developing native apps for SailfishOS, many
improvments are needed in this area.
Regards,
Andreas Enbacka
On 10.1.2014 9:57, Franck Routier (perso) wrote:
Hi,
currently, the Harbour QA process is quite frustrating, as problems
are reported one after the other, with a delay of several days
inbetween... reminds me of the old time cobol compilators!
It would be cool if the efforts made by the developper to provide free
native application were a bit more considered.
Ok, I'm talking out of frustration, but I had my app rejected first
because of naming conventions of the app itself (I didn't properly
read the FAQ, but it is not stated either in the app submission page
of Harbour), delay of 7 days, then because of rmp file naming
convention (which I did not find clearly stated except in the
rejection notification - 5 more days). Now I am waiting for next step
(2 days for now...)
I understand this is a lot of work, but what I suggest is :
- more controls and more information in the app submission page
(testing the naming conventions of at least the files seems trivial)
- when doing QA, report all problems at once, not just the first one
- maybe provide a QA tool so that developpers could do this job and
let jolla teams concentrate on real QA (power consumption, security
checks, ...)
Hope this does not sound too demanding...
Best regards,
Franck
_______________________________________________
SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
_______________________________________________
SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
_______________________________________________
SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
