Hi Andre, Yes. Tomorrow I will move only main/test to trunk/test. I will remove the useless test things step by step under the old place.
2012/8/30 Andre Fischer <[email protected]>: > On 30.08.2012 10:43, Zhe Liu wrote: >> >> 2012/8/30 Andre Fischer <[email protected]>: >>> >>> On 30.08.2012 04:09, Shenfeng Liu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 for test data and test script in a separated tree. Test documents >>>> should >>>> never be distributed together with product code. Only the sample >>>> documents >>>> in tutorials should. >>>> Another advantage for a separated QE tree is that a volunteer can >>>> download >>>> any AOO build and run the same test suite from the QE tree again and >>>> again, >>>> a easy way of regression and even automation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Good idea, a third use case: use pre-built office and only the test/ >>> source >>> code. >> >> Right! The current main/test is not used for code unit test. It 's >> used to test a real AOO instance. >> >>> >>> >>>> A complex situation maybe the UT by developer that calls internal >>>> functions. Sometimes developers like to write UT code together with the >>>> product code. But will a sample document be used in UT? >>> >>> >>> >>> Even when we move the testing stuff one level higher to be on the same >>> level >>> as main/ and ext_libraries/ then an SVN checkout still puts it on your >>> local >>> disk. The advantage of that move would be that >>> >>> a) you can avoid checking out test/ and >>> b) it becomes easier to avoid including test/ in the source release. >> >> >> No problem for me to move test up. ooo/trunk/main/test -> ooo/trunk/test >> It's OK for me. Except of test module, there is a lot of other test >> legacy which should be moved up or removed from svn. e.g. >> testautomation, smoketestdoc, smoketestoo_native , qadevOOo, {Some >> Modules}/qa, and testgraphical. >> It's a complex thing. I can volunteer for this. > > > Great. Would it make sense to move everything test related that is > currently in use to ooo/trunk/test/ and leave the old stuff in place where > it can be deleted eventually? > > -Andre > > > >> >>> >>> >>> Are there any volunteers for this move? I would do it myself but I am on >>> vacation for the next three weeks. >>> >>> -Andre >>> >>> >>>> >>>> - Simon >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/8/30 Dave Fisher <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > -- Best Regards >From [email protected]
