My 2 cents on this topic: user interface consistency cannot be underestimated. I called these 'leds' unit-test icons because thats what they are (in my mind and I guess also for a lot of other people). So using them for anything else is not a good idea at all. Alex' proposal seems (to me) a much better idea.
On 23 Apr 2011, at 13:05, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > I agree with you. The browser is not yet a replacement for manual editing. > The validation mechanism has to be present. > > Maybe the led can be traded with a red bold font for the project name. The > meaning of the red font is clear and unambiguous. The led can then instead be > used for the test. How does that sound? > > I will work on the test soon. This week end maybe. > > Alexandre > > Le 23 avr. 2011 à 11:43, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Alexandre, >> >> I think the 'run tests' command is great idea ... >> >> Validation wil be important as long as folks edit configs by hand, so >> validation needs to be part of the tool set (whether automatic or manual) >> ... >> >> Just because people don't do it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be doing it >> ... it is very easy to introduce an error that won't show up until you try >> to use the configuration, so validation is important... >> >> I would prefer to see it automatic which then begs the question of how to >> notify the user that there is a validation issue and which >> configuration/version has the issue ... presumably we have a set of feedback >> options that we can use ... >> >> Dale -- Johan Fabry [email protected] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
