Hello,

So there was a presentation about this tool at FOSDEM, the video
recording is already available on
https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/ode_testing/
Basically, the tool (improved a bit since FOSDEM) is currently reporting
about 8000 warnings, i.e. 8 per file on average. I have attached the
evolution over time, we clearly see the migration to .ui files during
4.0 :) Looking at a few .ui files, there are some false positives, but
not so many, and they are usually based on semantic, so they wouldn't be
detectable anyway, one needs to mark them as such anyway. There are some
errors too (parsing error or missing targets), they are quite rare.

We have discussed with various people at FOSDEM about their feeling
on it, and thought how to proceed from there. Our goal is to achieve
zero-regression and fixing existing issues on the long run, while
avoiding to bother developers too hard. Our fears is that the tool might
produce too many false positives, that people need to be taught how to
fix the true positives, and that we don't want to do several a11y-fix
passes over all .ui files.

We thought about the following planning, step by step:

- Add to the build process error checking (only the hard errors such as
bogus target names). There are only a few existing issues, so we can fix
them alongside, and people won't introduce many, so making them errors
already shouldn't be bothering.

- Add to make check warning checking, one kind of warning at a time,
with suppression files alongside, so that the tool only displays "<n>
suppressed warnings" and new warnings introduced by developers from
there. These warnings would point to wiki pages explaining the ins and
outs of the issues and how to fix them. Introducing warnings one kind
of warning at a time should leave time to developers for learning the
accessibility rules progressively. It should also allow to observe how
well false positives are treated before enabling all warnings.

- When we get more and more confident that warnings are solid, we can
make them fatal (one kind at a time), to really enforce non-regression.

- At the same time, we would work on fixing issues raised by the tool on
some set of dialog boxes, to check that fixing them does provide good
accessibility, and to what extent we want to introduce more warnings to
reach good accessibility.

- At some point we'll get confident that we won't introduce other
big classes of warnings over hundreds of .ui files. That's the point
where we can say "ok, let's start fixing the existing issues over
all .ui files once for good". We can then run through .ui files one
by one, fixing the issues and removing the corresponding suppression
lines. These could be used as "easy hacks" entries, they are usually
just a few lines to fix.

The progression of all of this could be monitored with statistics
reported e.g. in the minutes of ESC calls.

What do people think about this plan?

Samuel

Attachment: libreoffice.eps
Description: PostScript document

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Reply via email to