* guesswork (correct me, please!)
* related suggestions for improvement to the Framework Team process.
On 27 Feb 2008, at 01:00, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 24, 2008, at 5:30 PM, George Lee wrote:
imho, yes. the fact that two additional packages are introduced
by the PLIP should have been pointed out, along with additional
review notes about them, or at least a note whether they have been
reviewed or not...
It should have been pretty obvious, the review buildout had a
'parts/review' part with the changed or new products inside it, and
I did see the five URLs under [review] at
but when I first read
<http://awkly.org/2007/12/24/preparing-plip-187-for-review/> I was
busy enough learning buildout in general, to wonder about the meaning
and nature of 'test' and 'review' in relation to a PLIP or a 'bundle'.
With this lack of general knowledge, I didn't (don't) know whether:
a) there are _dependencies_ between (i) WebDAV, (ii) Calendaring
and (iii) Lime
b) there are no dependencies, but there _is_ a _wish_ for (ii)
Calendaring and (iii) Lime to be reviewed _coincidental_ to (i)
proposed WebDAV-related improvements to Plone.
No mention of Calendaring or Lime at <http://plone.org/products/plone/
roadmap> so I _guess_ that whatever the need/wish to review
Calendaring and Lime, these two:
* remain in the collective
* are not intended for Plone core
* are not associated with the timeline for Plone 3.1.
Preparing for further tests (and a plea for help)
On 27 Feb 2008, at 05:27, Alexander Limi wrote:
tests will never be a substitute for testing the code in actual
Good news, I think ... as in recent weeks I have integrated the
[review] aspect of Sidnei's buildout.cfg within the vast majority of
my own buildouts (preparing for upgrades to production service), so:
* the presence of that code has been *often* tested alongside the
presence of various add-on products.
I didn't catch the front page issue, but whilst troubleshooting some
other issue (I can't recall what) someone did ask me why Calendaring
I did find some WebDAV related issues (all in Trac) but I wasn't sure
whether the issues were additionally relative to a PLIP/bundle review.
In retrospect, there were many additional opportunities for me to
test the codes -- both with and without zopectl.
I discovered testing, only briefly, at the Zope/Plone day, the
presentation archived at <http://www.plone4universities.org/Members/
Since then I'm reading the tutorial, <http://plone.org/documentation/
tutorial/testing>. Whilst I'm OK with basics such as
bin/instance test --help
-- I have *not* managed to run targeted/discrete tests (as you might
guess, I find thousands of tests running).
I see testWebDAV.py at <http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/CMFPlone/
branches/3.1/tests/testWebDAV.py>, should I do something with this?
I am cc'd at
* bundle review for PLIP #187
* Create a comprehensive suite of browser tests
and if anyone would like to walk me through the command (line), to
run tests that are specific to the WebDAV PLIP, I'll be lurking in
Framework Team process improvements
* team definition of 'PLIP'
* team definition of the generic expression 'PLIP bundle'
* distinguish between the two
* team definition of 'review' in the context of PLIP and bundle
* for each PLIP, tips from the author/proposer/seconder
* ".. test this and that ... watch for the other ..." etc.
* for each bundle, tips from the submitter(s) of the bundle
* as above.
Much of that exists, surely, but honestly it was not blindingly
obvious when I was first introduced to the PLIP concept ... probably
because firstname.lastname@example.org is obscure and its default
archive not searchable.
<http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7816> looking very good :)
Framework-Team mailing list