Hi, if you can provide a JUNIT test please provide it (which would be a mocking "festival").
As for the STF, I think you have to add a method in the de.fu_berlin.inf.dpp.stf.server.rmi.remotebot.widget.impl.RemoteBotEditor class that implements the check or a method that returns the amount of annotations at the given offset (I would prefer the second approach). BR, Stefan Am 18.11.2012 15:40, schrieb Ercan Kücükkaraca: > Hi, > > Steffen and I have a couple of questions regarding the TestCase we were > meaning to create for our issue[1]: > > We would like to simulate a session as described in [1] and then check > whether there are > 1 annotations at the same offset in the given > annotationModels. Looking at [2] and several other TestCases, we have > figured out how to create such a session using STF with multiple users. > However, we have not been able to find a way to access the > annotationModels so far. > > Actually, it is still not clear to us, if we should utilize the STF at > all or rather a standard junit Test. Are there allready any test cases > for annotations, which we could use for orientation? If not, are there > other closely related ones? > > Thanks in advance for your help! And sapologies for bothering you on > sunday :) > > Kind regards, > Steffen & Ercan > > [1] > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3544370&group_id=167540&atid=843359 > [2] https://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/wiki/pub/SE/DPPTesting/STF_Manual_v2.pdf > > On 17.11.2012 14:08, Ercan Kücükkaraca wrote: >> Hi Stefan and Franz, >> >> thanks for your replies. Steffen and I shall try to finish our solution >> and commit our changes for review asap. Would you please be so kind to >> approve ercankk/ercan.kuecuekkar...@fu-berlin.de for Gerrit in the meantime? >> >> Have a nice weekend! Best regards, >> Steffen & Ercan >> >> On 14.11.2012 22:49, Zieris, Franz wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree with Stefan. And I favor option 1 as it seems natural to me. >>> >>> Franz >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________________________ >>> From: Stefan Rossbach [mailto:srossb...@arcor.de] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:28 PM >>> To: Steffen Pade >>> Cc: Ercan Kücükkaraca; Zieris, Franz; dpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Subject: Re: [DPP-Devel] Bug 3572498 >>> >>> Hi Ercan and Steffen, >>> >>> I think >>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2706995&group_id=167540&atid=843359 >>> is caused by the Activity Sequencer when it merges (optimizes) >>> TextActivites. Instead of sending >>> a TextActivity like: user entered A, then B, then C ... it sends the >>> TextActivity: user entered ABC at once. >>> >>> Option 2 is a no go. If some insert a large block per C&P, the CPU load >>> will go mad if you >>> do not use the bulk method for inserting annotations into the annotation >>> model. The >>> option will also suffer from the fact that you are discarding information >>> when the >>> C&P text is larger than 20 characters. >>> >>> Franz your opinion ? >>> >>> BR, >>> Stefan >>> >>> Am 14.11.2012 19:57, schrieb Steffen Pade: >>> Hi, >>> >>> thank you for pointing us in the right direction! We believe that we >>> have been able to isolate the issue: >>> >>> If some characters are put inbetween a larger chunk of text that has >>> been annotated by one large annotation (as c&p'ed text is), this large >>> annotation will not be split, but rather 'overridden' by the latest 20 >>> chars. Because of this 20 annotation per user limit, those newly input >>> chars will start to be 'reclaimed' by that one large annotation, as soon >>> as the maximum amount of annotations is exceeded. We thought about two >>> solution approaches, we would like to discuss, one of which we favour >>> (the first one): >>> >>> 1. As it is done with another users' annotations, when something is written >>> locally, split those annotations as well because of a third party's >>> update. We believe that in de.fu_berlin.inf.dpp.editor.replaceText(...) >>> the ContributionAnnotationManager's splitAnnotation()-function has to be >>> called before the remote annotation is inserted. >>> >>> 2. Instead of annotating a larger chunk of text, annotate each character >>> individually (this approach would probably kill performance-wise and >>> remove some desired functionality). Meaning only the last 20 chars of >>> a pasted text would be annotated. >>> >>> Another approach would be >>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2706995&group_id=167540&atid=843359, >>> of course. If you favor that one, however, we would like you to >>> elaborate, whether that behavior should apply to c&p'ed text having < 20 >>> characters as well, etc. >>> >>> Your feedback on this issue is appreciated. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Ercan & Steffen >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single >> web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, >> SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. >> Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov >> _______________________________________________ >> DPP-Devel mailing list >> DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ DPP-Devel mailing list DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel
