On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 08/29/2012 10:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Andre Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 29.08.2012 16:02, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Andre Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I just saw that we have now two new binary files in the test/ module. >>>>> >>>>> main/test/testgui/data/svt/complex.ods has a size of 9 424 385 Bytes and >>>>> main/test/testgui/data/svt/complex.odt has a size of 27 175 936 Bytes. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if SVN is really the best place for files that large. >>>>> >>>>> I also don't think that these files should be part of the source release. >>>>> But what else would have to be removed that depends on these files? >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Something to keep in mind is that we'll probably end up with a large >>>> number of test documents, 200+ MB. Not all of them will be large. >>>> But if we want to have good test coverage then we'll need test >>>> documents to cover all areas, for ODF, MS Binaries and OOXML. So this >>>> will grow, over time, to a large test set. >>>> >>>> This leads to four questions: >>>> >>>> 1) Should we be testing large/complex documents? >>>> >>>> I think the answer is "yes". >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 2) Should such test documents be in SVN? >>>> >>>> I think they should. >>> >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 3) Should these documents be in the same source tree with the rest of >>>> the code that is downloaded by default for a build? >>>> >>>> Maybe not. Unless they are needed for a smoke test that should be run >>>> by every developer. But if not, maybe they should be stored in its >>>> own tree, like ooo/test/trunk or something like that. >>>> >>>> 4) Should these documents be included in the source distribution? >>>> >>>> Probably depends on the answer to question 3. Maybe, maybe not. Or >>>> maybe we have a separate source distribution artifact only for >>>> test-related files? >>> >>> >>> >>> My personal opinion is no. I believe that the use case for downloading and >>> building the source release is different from the use case for cloning the >>> SVN repository. I would expect the source release to be used for building >>> AOO, maybe do a simple test to verify that building was successful, and then >>> delete the source code. >>> >> >> OK. That is a useful distinction: building versus developing.
I think Building versus QA - both are developing. >> >>> If I want to start developing then I would choose SVN. Complex tests would >>> help me to avoid new errors. >>> >>> I don't see the need for complex tests when my goal is not developing. Lack >>> of trust that we did not run the tests on the released code? >>> >>> But, of course I can be wrong (and often are :-). >>> >> >> If we follow that logic, then we might still store the test data and >> test code in SVN, but in its own tree, e.g., /ooo/test/trunk. >> >> This also preserves the option of us having a "test source" artifact >> in a future release, if we wanted. >> >> -Rob > > +1, this seems like a good compromise > > I don' think the "test" cases should be in the same tree as source. Agreed. > > No use overloading developers who simply want to build and make modifications. Source is required as an Open Source release. (we should all understand that.) QA / test is "optional" but quite important. It should be separate and we can include a "QA" package as one of our convenience binaries during a release. Regards, Dave > > >> >>> -Andre >>> >>>> >>>> -Rob >>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Andre >>> >>> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > MzK > > "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices: > take it or leave it. " > -- Buddy Hackett
