On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:52 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On 21 Aug 2014 at 11:58:01, Denis Gervalle ([email protected](mailto: > [email protected])) wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:01 PM, [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Aug 2014 at 15:55:59, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > > > [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm fine with running the functional tests only for the default skin. > > > > Note that although we support many browsers we run the functional > > > > tests only for Firefox. > > > > > > Which is bad and not something we want ;) > > > > > > > We want to have test on all browser with as many skin as possible, > > including test of all combination of migrated version, and ... well, what > > we want is not really compatible with true reality :) > > You’re mixing a bit everything in the same bag here :) There are 2 aspects: > > - It’s specifically because we don’t have that much manpower that we must > have our CI automatically test on various browsers/databases/OSes. This > works well because the tests don’t need to be modified (in theory at least > but mostly true) to be executed on various browsers/databases/OSes. > We could not say that test does not require some maintenance effort, and supporting multiple skin will increase it. > - for the various skins it’s different because you need to write several > test frameworks (one per skin) so it’s indeed more work. > I have not the feeling we have the time for that, there are many other aspect that also require our attention. > > > So, taking into account our team, I do not think we can afford the > support > > of more than one skin. In practice, I doubt those that see our new skin > > will want to stick with colibri for long, and those that will, will also > > stick with the old xwiki version they have. The support for both colibri > > and flamingo in parallel is also short term, so unless I over estimate > the > > workload, I am +1 to only support one skin in functional tests, and to > also > > put some reserves on the usage of colibri in upcoming versions. > > It depends if we’re able to fulfil a large majority of use cases with only > 1 skin or not. > I agree that if flavor came with different skins, we will need to support testing those. This does not seems to be the plan at the moment. We have taken the direction of supporting mobile using the same skin than desktop, so the exact opposite of having multiple skins for different purposes. > The fact that we’ve been able to support only one skin shows how complex > writing an XWiki skin is. If you check on extensions.xwiki.org you’ll see > we have very few skins, especially compared to other tools like wordpress, > drupal, etc. We’ve been saying this for years but we haven’t made progress. > Quite the opposite, over the years, we’ve made writing skins more complex > (for example right now if you want to write a new skin you need to make > sure to implement all Extension Points in your skin if you want your skin > to behave properly with extensions!). > Comparing XWiki skins ans wordpress, drupal, etc... themes, is really unfair. In fact, those products are simply not fully "skinable", they have a single static skin with many options, and they have themes, which is not exactly the same. The Skin is a very powerful feature of XWiki, since it allows a complete flexibility of the XWiki UI when need arise. > Now one solution could be to have only 1 (or a few) base skins and improve > Skin Themes so that users can do more and more in a Theme, thus allowing > just to modify Themes and not a full skin. We started with Color Themes, > added the ability to change the logo, and we are now moving to Themes with > the ability to also change fonts. This is a step in the right direction I > believe. In some future, we could maybe also support more Theme features. > At some point we might need to fold default Panels layout (1 column, 2 > columns, 3 columns, etc) and Panels selection into Themes too. Etc. > I completely agree that we should improve that aspect, and Flamingo will really help. It should be able to take bootstrap themes and apply them to XWiki. Changing and supporting multiple theme is only a matter of CSS, and should not affect the functionalities, so testing different themes is not really required IMO. > If we push this to a level where having 1 skin and using various Themes > allow XWiki users to implement the UI they need for their project then we > won’t need to support more than 1 skin. > Users can always customize the skin, this does not change anything for us. > But I fear this is just pushing the testing problem to Themes (but maybe > to a lesser degree, depending on the freedom we give to Themes) ;) And if > we wish to support several Themes we’ll need to test them… > We should not put in Themes what is a matter of Skin. The skin could have many options, like other product does. Supporting multiple skin is actually out of scope for the small theme we are. > Anyway, for 6.2 I agree we don’t have the time to make our UI test > framework multiskin-enabled. > > However, I believe we’ll need to refactor our test framework to allow > supporting testing several UI. That will be useful when we need to do that > but also for our users writing new skins and needing tests for them. I > don’t think it’s that complicated to do. > I have nothing against, I just do not see it as a priority. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > So I think it's ok if we continue supporting > > > > the Colibri skin for a few versions even if we stop running the > > > > functional tests on it (because it's not the default skin any more). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marius > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:12 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > ATM our selenium2-based test fwk for functional tests only supports > > > one skin (Colibri). > > > > > > > > > > Guillaume is currently fixing the functional tests by changing our > > > test framework to work with Flamingo. > > > > > > > > > > After his changes are made our framework won’t work anymore with > > > Colibri. > > > > > > > > > > The question is: > > > > > * Is this ok? > > > > > * Do we want to change the framework to support multiple skins? In > > > this case we would need to introduce Interfaces everywhere, for each > Page > > > Object to have various implementations. > > > > > > > > > > One example of difference is Hover vs Clicking for the top level > > > menus. Another example is that we don’t have anymore a contentmenu; > it’s 3 > > > buttons. Etc. > > > > > > > > > > Any opinion? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > -Vincent > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devs mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Denis Gervalle > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
