Re: QA Automated Test coverage

[Damjan Jovanovic]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:14 PM Carl Marcum  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
> I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
> provide vs.functionality?
>
> 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
>
> I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
> contributors if we had a place to work from.
> Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
>
> I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
>
>
Hi Carl

Thank you for helping with the tests.

I wrote a good email summarizing the different tests we have some years
ago, please see
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb1851b82ba009d2cefdf5af9997099b6fdfb04bddac3753172f2698%401459253891%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
Some things changed since then, eg. the smoketest location moved. There are
a few other emails too, search for them.

I also did some test fixes to bvt/fvt and others at various times. This
year I learned quite a lot about them. For example many tests fail because
they expect features that the .DOC file format cannot provide (such as
strikeout styles unique to .ODT), there were timeouts, registry
modifications had to be enabled to fix a test, confirmation dialogs that
hang the tests, a 2048 byte limit in FreeBSD's "ps" was causing a pid
lookup to fail, java.util.Calendar was being used incorrectly, etc. I fixed
some of these, but others remain. Understanding why the .DOC tests fail
requires understanding the .DOC file format, so fixing those tests isn't
easy. Look through the Git log, I wrote pretty descriptive commit messages.

One thing I didn't mention in that email is the thousands of unused tests
we have in main/qadevOOo, but they seem difficult to set up, and use a
custom test framework, not JUnit. They have a complex architecture, with
some code implementing UNO components and some code testing them. There
might even be code missing for some of them. There's a mixture of Java and
StarBasic tests there, with much duplication - were they first written in
one language then semi-ported to another?

Anyway I can't help much at the moment, but good luck and let us know how
it goes.

Damjan

OpenOffice.org migration status

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

The new repository is https://GitHub.com/Apache/OpenOffice-org

The next steps are to finish the templates.

(Wednesday)
(1) Breadcrumbs
(2) Branding/Navigation adjustments per directory

(Thursday)
(3) Staging / Test server with Infra help

(Friday)
(4) Directory migration script
(5) Release for testing

Everyone can test at (5)

Regards,
Dave



Sent from my iPhone

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: QA Automated Test coverage

[Carl Marcum]

Hi Andrea,

On 10/27/20 5:58 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which 
I don't think we use anymore


Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the 
recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis 
contributed a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links 
and then moved away with our data. At least, all references to the 
Adfinis link should be removed.



and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].


No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at 
least I cannot find them in the wiki.


Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case 
Management is also a 404.


This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted 
by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others 
around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to 
their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are 
obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back, 
unfortunately: they provided very good coverage and helped building a 
QA community.


Regards,
  Andrea.
There seem to be quite a bit of automated functional tests. around 800. 
Not all get ran on all platforms but I have no way to know yet how much 
that covers.
I'm looking into different options to make them a little friendlier for 
new QA contributors to build and use.

Easier and used more :)

It seems that they are setup to be built by ant only after a build of 
the office because the ant build uses artifacts from the solver 
directory after a build.

Things like the UNO jars and idlc.
These files could easily be used from the office and sdk to be tested or 
the installed office so a QA doesn't have to build the office first to 
use them.


Best regards,
Carl


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

[Delio Orozco Gonzalez]

Hi, 

Confirmed: «AOO_4.1.8_test15» in Debian 9, 64 bits, don't show error messages.

Regards,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Martes, 27 de Octubre 2020 17:08:07
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hello everyone:

AOO_4.1.8_test15 in Debian 10 (64 bits) don't show error messages. I suposse 
that in Debian 9 neither. I confirm more later.

Regards,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Lunes, 26 de Octubre 2020 19:06:58
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hello Mathias:

Test for AOO_4.1.8_test13 in Debian 9

CPU: Intel 2 Duo E8400 (2) @ 2.9GHz
OS: Debian GNU/Linux 9.13 (stretch) x86_64
DE: IceWM and Budgie

1.-At saving a odt document first time, AOO_4.1.8_test13 show an error messages 
 
2.-When I open and odt document, even the same one that I just created, 
AOO_4.8.1 show an error messages.

However AOO don't show error messages when save or open a document in format 
.doc :-)

Regards best,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Lunes, 26 de Octubre 2020 17:44:45
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Test with AOO_4.1.8_test13

PC: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 (4) @ 2.669GHz 
OS: Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) x86_64
Kernel: 4.19.0-10-amd64
DE: IceWm and Budgie

1.-At saving a odt document first time, AOO_4.1.8_test13 show an error messages 
 
2.-When I open and odt document, even the same one that I just created, 
AOO_4.8.1 show an error messages. 

More later I will test with Debian 9.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Lunes, 26 de Octubre 2020 14:00:36
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hello everyone:

AOO_4.1.8_test8 don't show error messages in Debian 9 and Debian 10; 
nevertheless, AOO_4.1.8_test12 show error at time to save or open an odt 
document. 

Regards,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Matthias Seidel" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Domingo, 25 de Octubre 2020 17:15:13
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hi,

Am 25.10.20 um 22:06 schrieb Delio Orozco Gonzalez:
> Hello Mathias:
>
> Would put a modern set icons, similar to LibreOffice, descendat of AOO; for 
> example: Sukapura or Colibre, it's possible?

If the license is compatible and you find someone to do the work? ;-)

For me it is not high on the priority list.

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> Regards,
>
> Delio.
>
> - Mensaje original -
> De: "Matthias Seidel" 
> Para: "dev" 
> Enviados: Domingo, 25 de Octubre 2020 8:18:57
> Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2
>
> Hi Delio,
>
> Am 25.10.20 um 03:06 schrieb Delio Orozco Gonzalez:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Mathias:
>>
>> I visited https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124841
>>
>> I refer to that problem. There is any way to resolve it?
> We are all volunteers working in our spare time.
> Unfortunately the two people discussing that issue left the project
> longer ago.
>
> So it would need a developer working on this. Of course help is always
> welcome!
>
>> A software is good if make good that say to make. However,  the appearance 
>> is not inert, could the developers put a new set of icons in AOO_4.1.8?  
> Development for 4.1.8 is already closed. But of course it could go into
> "trunk" or "AOO42X".
> A new icon set would need a graphic designer (or similar). And those
> icons must be compatible with our license.
>
> What kind of icons did you think of?
>
>>  
>>
>> I'm an final user, not developer :-( 
> Don't worry, I am also no developer. But there are many parts where
> individuals can help.
>
> That said, your testing is highly appreciated!
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Delio.
>>
>> - Mensaje original -
>> De: "Matthias Seidel" 
>> Para: "dev" 
>> Enviados: Sábado, 24 de Octubre 2020 16:06:50
>> Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2
>>
>> Hi Delio,
>>
>> Am 24.10.20 um 19:28 schrieb Delio Orozco Gonzalez:
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> From test3, on Debian 9 and Debian 10, I was able to save and open an odt 
>>> file without error message. The desktop environments are IceWM and Budgie.
>>>
>>> Here are two links to compare the loss of quality in AOO when an image is 
>>> reduced using the mouse. Links were shared with dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>> Image scale by mouse on AOO_4.1.8_test6
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hR7DxUEHPoRkgY1m4LpdYqhaJ8982I_1/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Image scale by mouse on LO_7.0.2.2
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zT2gKUpUBF_U2GkHjcUU3qGWASprW1XO/view?usp=sharing
>> Sorry, no access! dev@openoffice.apache.org is a mailing list, nobody
>> can authorize with that address...
>>
>> But it sounds like this Bugzilla issue:
>>

Re: Google Analytics and Download Count

[Dave Fisher]

What git migration?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
> 
> 
>> Am 27.10.20 um 23:22 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Hi -
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
 On Oct 27, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dave Fisher wrote:
 I will be doing the initial migration as quickly as I can. I think that 
 metrics needs a specific discussion.
 Initially I’ll comment this out.
>>> Do I understand well that there is no technical reason whatsoever to get 
>>> rid of Google Analytics, and that the discussion is purely political?
>> Not really political in that there are now digital privacy rights in some 
>> jurisdictions.
>> 
>> Currently, it is strongly recommend by the Operations of ASF. The Board has 
>> created the VP, Digital Privacy. Unfortunately we are the third one since 
>> 2019. We can ask there.
> Please elaborate on that point. I have made sure we are in line with all GDPR 
> Rules I am aware. This has been always a special care.
>>> This is fine, but in this case the logical approach would be the opposite: 
>>> we keep Google Analytics initially, then if someone wants to start a 
>>> discussion (which is obviously political in this case) to remove it and 
>>> this reaches consensus, we remove Google Analytics.
>>> 
>>> That said, I surely don't want to slow down the website migration work: it 
>>> is much, much better to have a working migration without GA (and then one 
>>> can easily add GA back and restart this discussion) than spend a month in 
>>> assessing whether we need GA and block the migration for this.
>> I’m taking it out, but it is rather trivial to put it back.
> -1, If it is trivial to put them in, then it is easy to take them out later 
> too. here is no need to rush. Especially when we want to try a clean 
> migration. The git migration I started has been not well done. And it would 
> be nice if you give some time to drive this topic. If it is easy to put it 
> back it is easy to take it out later. Why the sudden activity rush?
>> 
>> Logs are available from Infra on a sliding 30 day window. If we activate the 
>> Apache Mirrors they include downloads.
> Let us build first a process on top of this. Data. I will try to make some 
> time for this next weekend. Please don't put any haste.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Andrea.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

Possible... esp w/ raptor that saw a huge bump from 1.x to 2.x... 

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 6:47 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
> 
> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Maybe... but it DID WORK before. That is, before the mega patch,
>> configure did the "right thing". So if something is causing configure
>> to make a different decision, it is due to the interaction w/ the new
>> stuff that the RDF stuff does. The problem is with the patch or how it
>> is working...
> 
> I'm thinking of any configure scripts used by raptor / rasqal / redland,
> which would have changed by the upgrade.
> 
>> In any case, iirc we did compare the config.log files between 4.1.7
>> and 4.1.8-RC2 and there was no pertinent difference between the 2...
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 For completeness, and especially for those not following the thread,
 what we have conclusively shown is that it is NOT an issue w/ the
 build server, which is the same we've been using for several 4.1.x
 releases, nor with the configure and build parameters (also
 unchanged from previous). It is this mega patch which combines
 several upgrades in one large patch.
 
 My thought is that w/ the change with the RDF libs, the patch either
 pulls in the wrong library (maybe the system library) for something,
 which causes issues w/ newer distros, or else it doesn't pull in a
 library and the one used by newer distros causes the problem.
>>> 
>>> Or maybe a configure script makes a different decision about the
>>> system libraries on CentOS 5 (vs when building on something newer)
>>> that causes the code not to work properly on newer distros.
>>> 
> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
>> 
>> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test,
>>> based on
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
>>> 
>>> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the
>>> problem arose with
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
>>> 
>>> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is
>>> unknown, but a quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor
>>> upgrade was the most significant of the 3, but the redland patch
>>> also seems to have some weird things (like no longer linking
>>> openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
>> 
>> Questions (which may be related):
>> 
>> Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?
>> 
>> Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run
>> on a newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when
>> compiled on a newer distro?
> 
> If I knew those answers we wouldn't be wondering what is going on
> and I wouldn't have had to create >15 test builds :-)
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>  For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> >> > For additional
>>> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
>>> 
>>> >> >
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 

Re: Google Analytics and Download Count

[Peter Kovacs]

Am 27.10.20 um 23:22 schrieb Dave Fisher:

Hi -

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 27, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

Dave Fisher wrote:

I will be doing the initial migration as quickly as I can. I think that metrics 
needs a specific discussion.
Initially I’ll comment this out.

Do I understand well that there is no technical reason whatsoever to get rid of 
Google Analytics, and that the discussion is purely political?

Not really political in that there are now digital privacy rights in some 
jurisdictions.

Currently, it is strongly recommend by the Operations of ASF. The Board has 
created the VP, Digital Privacy. Unfortunately we are the third one since 2019. 
We can ask there.
Please elaborate on that point. I have made sure we are in line with all 
GDPR Rules I am aware. This has been always a special care.

This is fine, but in this case the logical approach would be the opposite: we 
keep Google Analytics initially, then if someone wants to start a discussion 
(which is obviously political in this case) to remove it and this reaches 
consensus, we remove Google Analytics.

That said, I surely don't want to slow down the website migration work: it is 
much, much better to have a working migration without GA (and then one can 
easily add GA back and restart this discussion) than spend a month in assessing 
whether we need GA and block the migration for this.

I’m taking it out, but it is rather trivial to put it back.
-1, If it is trivial to put them in, then it is easy to take them out 
later too. here is no need to rush. Especially when we want to try a 
clean migration. The git migration I started has been not well done. And 
it would be nice if you give some time to drive this topic. If it is 
easy to put it back it is easy to take it out later. Why the sudden 
activity rush?


Logs are available from Infra on a sliding 30 day window. If we activate the 
Apache Mirrors they include downloads.
Let us build first a process on top of this. Data. I will try to make 
some time for this next weekend. Please don't put any haste.


Regards,
Dave


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Don Lewis]

On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Maybe... but it DID WORK before. That is, before the mega patch,
> configure did the "right thing". So if something is causing configure
> to make a different decision, it is due to the interaction w/ the new
> stuff that the RDF stuff does. The problem is with the patch or how it
> is working...

I'm thinking of any configure scripts used by raptor / rasqal / redland,
which would have changed by the upgrade.

> In any case, iirc we did compare the config.log files between 4.1.7
> and 4.1.8-RC2 and there was no pertinent difference between the 2...
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
>> 
>> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> For completeness, and especially for those not following the thread,
>>> what we have conclusively shown is that it is NOT an issue w/ the
>>> build server, which is the same we've been using for several 4.1.x
>>> releases, nor with the configure and build parameters (also
>>> unchanged from previous). It is this mega patch which combines
>>> several upgrades in one large patch.
>>> 
>>> My thought is that w/ the change with the RDF libs, the patch either
>>> pulls in the wrong library (maybe the system library) for something,
>>> which causes issues w/ newer distros, or else it doesn't pull in a
>>> library and the one used by newer distros causes the problem.
>> 
>> Or maybe a configure script makes a different decision about the
>> system libraries on CentOS 5 (vs when building on something newer)
>> that causes the code not to work properly on newer distros.
>> 
 On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
 
 
 
> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
> 
> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test,
>> based on
>> 
>>  
>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
>> 
>> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the
>> problem arose with
>> 
>>  
>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
>> 
>> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is
>> unknown, but a quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor
>> upgrade was the most significant of the 3, but the redland patch
>> also seems to have some weird things (like no longer linking
>> openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
> 
> Questions (which may be related):
> 
> Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?
> 
> Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run
> on a newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when
> compiled on a newer distro?
 
 If I knew those answers we wouldn't be wondering what is going on
 and I wouldn't have had to create >15 test builds :-)
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
  For additional
 commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>  For additional
>> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Google Analytics and Download Count

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>> I will be doing the initial migration as quickly as I can. I think that 
>> metrics needs a specific discussion.
>> Initially I’ll comment this out.
> 
> Do I understand well that there is no technical reason whatsoever to get rid 
> of Google Analytics, and that the discussion is purely political?

Not really political in that there are now digital privacy rights in some 
jurisdictions.

Currently, it is strongly recommend by the Operations of ASF. The Board has 
created the VP, Digital Privacy. Unfortunately we are the third one since 2019. 
We can ask there.

> 
> This is fine, but in this case the logical approach would be the opposite: we 
> keep Google Analytics initially, then if someone wants to start a discussion 
> (which is obviously political in this case) to remove it and this reaches 
> consensus, we remove Google Analytics.
> 
> That said, I surely don't want to slow down the website migration work: it is 
> much, much better to have a working migration without GA (and then one can 
> easily add GA back and restart this discussion) than spend a month in 
> assessing whether we need GA and block the migration for this.

I’m taking it out, but it is rather trivial to put it back.

Logs are available from Infra on a sliding 30 day window. If we activate the 
Apache Mirrors they include downloads.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: QA Automated Test coverage

[Peter Kovacs]

Maybe the following link helps?

https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html


Kay did migrate stuff in 2018 I think. Maybe went a bit unnoticed?

Is this what the Server had contained?

Am 27.10.20 um 22:58 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which 
I don't think we use anymore


Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the 
recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis 
contributed a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links 
and then moved away with our data. At least, all references to the 
Adfinis link should be removed.



and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].


No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at 
least I cannot find them in the wiki.


Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case 
Management is also a 404.


This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted 
by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others 
around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to 
their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are 
obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back, 
unfortunately: they provided very good coverage and helped building a 
QA community.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: QA Automated Test coverage

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Andrea,

Am 27.10.20 um 22:58 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
>> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which
>> I don't think we use anymore
>
> Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the
> recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis
> contributed a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links
> and then moved away with our data. At least, all references to the
> Adfinis link should be removed.

Was that AdfinisSygroup, the same that hosted our OpenGrok Server and
then pulled it?

They are now with LO...

https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2019/05/23/the-document-foundation-welcomes-adfinis-sygroup-to-the-projects-advisory-board/

I abstain from judgement. ;-)

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
>
> No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at
> least I cannot find them in the wiki.
>
>> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
>> Management is also a 404.
>
> This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted
> by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others
> around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to
> their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are
> obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back,
> unfortunately: they provided very good coverage and helped building a
> QA community.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Google Analytics and Download Count

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dave Fisher wrote:

I will be doing the initial migration as quickly as I can. I think that metrics 
needs a specific discussion.
Initially I’ll comment this out.


Do I understand well that there is no technical reason whatsoever to get 
rid of Google Analytics, and that the discussion is purely political?


This is fine, but in this case the logical approach would be the 
opposite: we keep Google Analytics initially, then if someone wants to 
start a discussion (which is obviously political in this case) to remove 
it and this reaches consensus, we remove Google Analytics.


That said, I surely don't want to slow down the website migration work: 
it is much, much better to have a working migration without GA (and then 
one can easily add GA back and restart this discussion) than spend a 
month in assessing whether we need GA and block the migration for this.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: QA Automated Test coverage

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:

Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I don't 
think we use anymore


Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the 
recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis contributed 
a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links and then moved 
away with our data. At least, all references to the Adfinis link should 
be removed.



and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].


No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at least 
I cannot find them in the wiki.


Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case 
Management is also a 404.


This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted 
by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others 
around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to 
their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are 
obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back, unfortunately: 
they provided very good coverage and helped building a QA community.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

Maybe... but it DID WORK before. That is, before the mega patch, configure did 
the "right thing". So if something is causing configure to make a different 
decision, it is due to the interaction w/ the new stuff that the RDF stuff 
does. The problem is with the patch or how it is working...

In any case, iirc we did compare the config.log files between 4.1.7 and 
4.1.8-RC2 and there was no pertinent difference between the 2...

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
> 
> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> For completeness, and especially for those not following the thread,
>> what we have conclusively shown is that it is NOT an issue w/ the
>> build server, which is the same we've been using for several 4.1.x
>> releases, nor with the configure and build parameters (also unchanged
>> from previous). It is this mega patch which combines several upgrades
>> in one large patch.
>> 
>> My thought is that w/ the change with the RDF libs, the patch either
>> pulls in the wrong library (maybe the system library) for something,
>> which causes issues w/ newer distros, or else it doesn't pull in a
>> library and the one used by newer distros causes the problem.
> 
> Or maybe a configure script makes a different decision about the system
> libraries on CentOS 5 (vs when building on something newer) that causes
> the code not to work properly on newer distros.
> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
 
 On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based
> on
> 
>  
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
> 
> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the
> problem arose with
> 
>  
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
> 
> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is
> unknown, but a quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor
> upgrade was the most significant of the 3, but the redland patch
> also seems to have some weird things (like no longer linking
> openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
 
 Questions (which may be related):
 
 Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?
 
 Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run on
 a newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when compiled on
 a newer distro?
>>> 
>>> If I knew those answers we wouldn't be wondering what is going on and
>>> I wouldn't have had to create >15 test builds :-)
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>  For additional
>>> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Don Lewis]

On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> For completeness, and especially for those not following the thread,
> what we have conclusively shown is that it is NOT an issue w/ the
> build server, which is the same we've been using for several 4.1.x
> releases, nor with the configure and build parameters (also unchanged
> from previous). It is this mega patch which combines several upgrades
> in one large patch.
> 
> My thought is that w/ the change with the RDF libs, the patch either
> pulls in the wrong library (maybe the system library) for something,
> which causes issues w/ newer distros, or else it doesn't pull in a
> library and the one used by newer distros causes the problem.

Or maybe a configure script makes a different decision about the system
libraries on CentOS 5 (vs when building on something newer) that causes
the code not to work properly on newer distros.

>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based
 on
 
   
 https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
 
 assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the
 problem arose with
 
   
 https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
 
 the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is
 unknown, but a quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor
 upgrade was the most significant of the 3, but the redland patch
 also seems to have some weird things (like no longer linking
 openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
>>> 
>>> Questions (which may be related):
>>> 
>>> Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?
>>> 
>>> Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run on
>>> a newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when compiled on
>>> a newer distro?
>> 
>> If I knew those answers we wouldn't be wondering what is going on and
>> I wouldn't have had to create >15 test builds :-)
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>  For additional
>> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

For completeness, and especially for those not following the thread, what we 
have conclusively shown is that it is NOT an issue w/ the build server, which 
is the same we've been using for several 4.1.x releases, nor with the configure 
and build parameters (also unchanged from previous). It is this mega patch 
which combines several upgrades in one large patch.

My thought is that w/ the change with the RDF libs, the patch either pulls in 
the wrong library (maybe the system library) for something, which causes issues 
w/ newer distros, or else it doesn't pull in a library and the one used by 
newer distros causes the problem.

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
>> 
>> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based on
>>> 
>>>   
>>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
>>> 
>>> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the problem arose 
>>> with
>>> 
>>>   
>>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
>>> 
>>> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is unknown, but 
>>> a quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor upgrade was the most 
>>> significant of the 3, but the redland patch also seems to have some weird 
>>> things (like no longer linking openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
>> 
>> Questions (which may be related):
>> 
>> Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?
>> 
>> Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run on a
>> newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when compiled on a
>> newer distro?
> 
> If I knew those answers we wouldn't be wondering what is going on and I 
> wouldn't have had to create >15 test builds :-)
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
> 
> On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based on
>> 
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
>> 
>> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the problem arose 
>> with
>> 
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
>> 
>> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is unknown, but a 
>> quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor upgrade was the most 
>> significant of the 3, but the redland patch also seems to have some weird 
>> things (like no longer linking openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
> 
> Questions (which may be related):
> 
> Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?
> 
> Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run on a
> newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when compiled on a
> newer distro?

If I knew those answers we wouldn't be wondering what is going on and I 
wouldn't have had to create >15 test builds :-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

[Delio Orozco Gonzalez]

Hello everyone:

AOO_4.1.8_test15 in Debian 10 (64 bits) don't show error messages. I suposse 
that in Debian 9 neither. I confirm more later.

Regards,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Lunes, 26 de Octubre 2020 19:06:58
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hello Mathias:

Test for AOO_4.1.8_test13 in Debian 9

CPU: Intel 2 Duo E8400 (2) @ 2.9GHz
OS: Debian GNU/Linux 9.13 (stretch) x86_64
DE: IceWM and Budgie

1.-At saving a odt document first time, AOO_4.1.8_test13 show an error messages 
 
2.-When I open and odt document, even the same one that I just created, 
AOO_4.8.1 show an error messages.

However AOO don't show error messages when save or open a document in format 
.doc :-)

Regards best,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Lunes, 26 de Octubre 2020 17:44:45
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Test with AOO_4.1.8_test13

PC: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 (4) @ 2.669GHz 
OS: Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) x86_64
Kernel: 4.19.0-10-amd64
DE: IceWm and Budgie

1.-At saving a odt document first time, AOO_4.1.8_test13 show an error messages 
 
2.-When I open and odt document, even the same one that I just created, 
AOO_4.8.1 show an error messages. 

More later I will test with Debian 9.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Delio Orozco Gonzalez" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Lunes, 26 de Octubre 2020 14:00:36
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hello everyone:

AOO_4.1.8_test8 don't show error messages in Debian 9 and Debian 10; 
nevertheless, AOO_4.1.8_test12 show error at time to save or open an odt 
document. 

Regards,

Delio.

- Mensaje original -
De: "Matthias Seidel" 
Para: "dev" 
Enviados: Domingo, 25 de Octubre 2020 17:15:13
Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2

Hi,

Am 25.10.20 um 22:06 schrieb Delio Orozco Gonzalez:
> Hello Mathias:
>
> Would put a modern set icons, similar to LibreOffice, descendat of AOO; for 
> example: Sukapura or Colibre, it's possible?

If the license is compatible and you find someone to do the work? ;-)

For me it is not high on the priority list.

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> Regards,
>
> Delio.
>
> - Mensaje original -
> De: "Matthias Seidel" 
> Para: "dev" 
> Enviados: Domingo, 25 de Octubre 2020 8:18:57
> Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2
>
> Hi Delio,
>
> Am 25.10.20 um 03:06 schrieb Delio Orozco Gonzalez:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Mathias:
>>
>> I visited https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124841
>>
>> I refer to that problem. There is any way to resolve it?
> We are all volunteers working in our spare time.
> Unfortunately the two people discussing that issue left the project
> longer ago.
>
> So it would need a developer working on this. Of course help is always
> welcome!
>
>> A software is good if make good that say to make. However,  the appearance 
>> is not inert, could the developers put a new set of icons in AOO_4.1.8?  
> Development for 4.1.8 is already closed. But of course it could go into
> "trunk" or "AOO42X".
> A new icon set would need a graphic designer (or similar). And those
> icons must be compatible with our license.
>
> What kind of icons did you think of?
>
>>  
>>
>> I'm an final user, not developer :-( 
> Don't worry, I am also no developer. But there are many parts where
> individuals can help.
>
> That said, your testing is highly appreciated!
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Delio.
>>
>> - Mensaje original -
>> De: "Matthias Seidel" 
>> Para: "dev" 
>> Enviados: Sábado, 24 de Octubre 2020 16:06:50
>> Asunto: Re: Test to Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.8_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US-v2
>>
>> Hi Delio,
>>
>> Am 24.10.20 um 19:28 schrieb Delio Orozco Gonzalez:
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> From test3, on Debian 9 and Debian 10, I was able to save and open an odt 
>>> file without error message. The desktop environments are IceWM and Budgie.
>>>
>>> Here are two links to compare the loss of quality in AOO when an image is 
>>> reduced using the mouse. Links were shared with dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>> Image scale by mouse on AOO_4.1.8_test6
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hR7DxUEHPoRkgY1m4LpdYqhaJ8982I_1/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Image scale by mouse on LO_7.0.2.2
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zT2gKUpUBF_U2GkHjcUU3qGWASprW1XO/view?usp=sharing
>> Sorry, no access! dev@openoffice.apache.org is a mailing list, nobody
>> can authorize with that address...
>>
>> But it sounds like this Bugzilla issue:
>>
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124841
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>>> Greetings to all
>>>
>>> Delio.
>>>
>>> - Mensaje original -
>>> De: "André Pereira" 
>>> Para: "dev" 
>>> Enviados: Sábado, 24 de Octubre 2020 7:22:23
>>> Asunto: Re: Test to 
>>> Apache_OpenOffice_4

Re: [openoffice-org] branch main updated: HTML template with extraction of head, body tag, and body

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Carl,

The matching thing in groovy was a bit of a pain, but it works now. Let me know 
if you have any suggestions.

Next steps are in skeleton.gsp
(1) Breadcrumbs.
(2) Branding, and navigator overrides.

Plus some settings work.

Regards,
Dave

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 1:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
> 
> wave pushed a commit to branch main
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice-org.git
> 
> 
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/main by this push:
> new 120657d  HTML template with extraction of head, body tag, and body
> 120657d is described below
> 
> commit 120657d17efe49ed6fa2b9d00462e4534cbce3f6
> Author: Dave Fisher 
> AuthorDate: Tue Oct 27 13:21:43 2020 -0700
> 
>HTML template with extraction of head, body tag, and body
> ---
> content/about.html  |  3 +++
> templates/html_page.gsp | 26 ++
> templates/skeleton.gsp  |  2 +-
> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/content/about.html b/content/about.html
> index ee93336..ae5306c 100644
> --- a/content/about.html
> +++ b/content/about.html
> @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
> +type=html_page
> +status=published
> +~~
>  "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
> 
> diff --git a/templates/html_page.gsp b/templates/html_page.gsp
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..e4d9e00
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/templates/html_page.gsp
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +<%
> +def matcher0 = content.body =~ "";
> +assert matcher0 instanceof java.util.regex.Matcher;
> +if (!matcher0) {
> +   throw new RuntimeException("bodytag does not match");
> +}
> +//assert matcher0.matches();
> +content.bodytag = matcher0.group(1);
> +
> +def matcher1 = content.body =~ "([\\S\\s]*?)";
> +assert matcher1 instanceof java.util.regex.Matcher;
> +if (!matcher1) {
> +   throw new RuntimeException("bodytag='${content.bodytag}' -- head does not 
> match");
> +}
> +//assert matcher1.matches();
> +content.header = matcher1.group(1);
> +
> +def matcher2 = content.body =~ "([\\S\\s]*?)";
> +assert matcher2 instanceof java.util.regex.Matcher;
> +if (!matcher2) {
> +   throw new RuntimeException("head='${content.header}' -- body does not 
> match");
> +}
> +//assert matcher2.matches();
> +content.extracted_body= matcher2.group(1);
> +
> +include "skeleton.gsp" %>
> diff --git a/templates/skeleton.gsp b/templates/skeleton.gsp
> index b811f0d..21ac145 100644
> --- a/templates/skeleton.gsp
> +++ b/templates/skeleton.gsp
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
> <% } %>
> 
>   
> -   ${content_bodytag} <% } %>>
> +  ${content.bodytag}<% } %>>
> 
> 
>   <% if (content.topnav) { %><% } %>
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Apache Python Project

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Hi Kent

Welcome to Apache OpenOffice.

One of the major tasks we need Python development for at the moment is to
upgrade OpenOffice from Python 2 to 3. This is unfortunately quite
difficult, as we not only have to port Python code, but possibly C code
too, deal with patching, testing and packaging the module, and it has to
work on different platforms. It should however look really good on your
resume right now, as with Python 2 having recently become EOL, there should
be many companies looking to port code to Python 3. This task is tracked in
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123975 and we already got Python
3 working somewhat with system-provided Python on *nix, but not with
internally provided Python we typically use on eg. Windows.

Otherwise I see 33 other bugs with "python" in their summary at
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&resolution=---&short_desc=python&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr

It's pretty difficult to get started with OpenOffice development, so shout
if you need any help.

Regards
Damjan


On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 8:50 PM Kent Olson  wrote:

> Dear Apache Projects,
>
> I was interested in a project involved with Apache - Python programming. I
> went to UAT in 2017 and I need some practice because I have been out of the
> loop for awhile. I was wondering if I do a project, I could put you down on
> my resume?  I also need more info on how to get started.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kent Olson
> --
> [image: photo]
> *Kent Olson*
> Web Host, Global Virtual Opportunities
>
> (612) 391-8302 | varnau...@gmail.com
>
> https://olso1304.hostthenprofit.com/
> 616 Washington Ave SE Mpls, MN 55414
> Create your own email signature
> <
> https://www.wisestamp.com/create-own-signature/?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=create_your_own&srcid=6184721375690752
> >
>

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Don Lewis]

On 27 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based on
> 
> 
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
> 
> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the problem arose 
> with
> 
> 
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
> 
> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is unknown, but a 
> quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor upgrade was the most 
> significant of the 3, but the redland patch also seems to have some weird 
> things (like no longer linking openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/

Questions (which may be related):

Why does this only affect AOO418 and not AOO42X and trunk?

Why does this only seem to affect builds done on CentOS 5 and run on a
newer distro and not when run on CentOS 5 and not when compiled on a
newer distro?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Wiki Publisher

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Keith,

Am 27.10.20 um 18:52 schrieb Keith N. McKenna:
> On 10/26/2020 10:52 AM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Joost,
>>
>> Am 26.10.20 um 13:19 schrieb Joost Andrae:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> I've just tried it out against a different MediaWiki and I can confirm
>>> it is running well !
>> Thanks, that's great news!
>>
>> @Keith: Is this useful for your documentation efforts?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>> @Matthias: Theoretically yes it would be, however the response from doc@
> has been totally underwhelming.
>
> Keith

Time to hype that a bit... ;-)

Regards,

   Matthias

>>> Best regards, Joost
>>>
>>> Am 26.10.2020 um 00:53 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Hi all,

 I just discovered that the Wiki Publisher we build with AOO 4.1.8 does
 seem to work!

 https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Test-MS

 The remaining problem is that it does not get bundled with the release.
 I will investigate further...

 Can you please test:

 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/wiki-publisher.oxt

 Regards,

     Matthias


>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Wiki Publisher

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 10/26/2020 10:52 AM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Joost,
> 
> Am 26.10.20 um 13:19 schrieb Joost Andrae:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> I've just tried it out against a different MediaWiki and I can confirm
>> it is running well !
> 
> Thanks, that's great news!
> 
> @Keith: Is this useful for your documentation efforts?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Matthias
> @Matthias: Theoretically yes it would be, however the response from doc@
has been totally underwhelming.

Keith
>>
>> Best regards, Joost
>>
>> Am 26.10.2020 um 00:53 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I just discovered that the Wiki Publisher we build with AOO 4.1.8 does
>>> seem to work!
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Test-MS
>>>
>>> The remaining problem is that it does not get bundled with the release.
>>> I will investigate further...
>>>
>>> Can you please test:
>>>
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/wiki-publisher.oxt
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>     Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

As expected:

e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27 is the first bad commit
commit e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
Author: truckman 
Date:   Fri Aug 26 07:13:14 2016 +
Upgrade bundled raptor from raptor-1.4.18 to raptor2-2.0.15 to get the
fix for CVE-2012-0037.  It is not know whether this vulnerability
affects OpenOffice.

Also upgrade rasqal from version 0.9.16 to version 0.9.33 and redland
from version 1.0.8 to version 1.0.17 since all three packages are
closely related parts of the OpenOffice redland module for handling RDF.

OpenDocument version 1.2 documents contain an RDF metadata blob for
things like bookmarks and OLE objects.

git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk@1757789 
13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
:04 04 546891908fd61c817962a3c8ef40d1c6e021b426 
cfc579fc39380a77c054b7aef379c0013e14bde9 M  main


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Matthias Seidel]

No problems in test15 for me!

Matthias

Am 27.10.20 um 17:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> test15, likely the final test of the git bisect series, is now available.
>
>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based on
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
>>
>> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the problem arose 
>> with
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
>>
>> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is unknown, but a 
>> quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor upgrade was the most 
>> significant of the 3, but the redland patch also seems to have some weird 
>> things (like no longer linking openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[André Pereira]

test15
Debian 10 64bits
No error messages to open or save odt and ods files

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

test15, likely the final test of the git bisect series, is now available.

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based on
> 
>
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784
> 
> assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the problem arose 
> with
> 
>
> https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27
> 
> the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is unknown, but a 
> quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor upgrade was the most 
> significant of the 3, but the redland patch also seems to have some weird 
> things (like no longer linking openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

Thanks all... I am now building the final 'git bisect' test, based on


https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/f7070ae3689d0d34bf9dab3d31f56744d0df4784

assuming that this is good, it seems like 99% likely that the problem arose with


https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/e9fab906a0063dca04a52bfc5270c9d70ccbbb27

the raptor / rasqal / redland mega patch. Which of those 3 is unknown, but a 
quick look over seems to indicate that the raptor upgrade was the most 
significant of the 3, but the redland patch also seems to have some weird 
things (like no longer linking openssl or libltdl) so who knows :/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Jim,

No error messages on opening and saving on Ubuntu 16.04.

Am 27.10.20 um 14:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> test14 is ready for testing!
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[André Pereira]

test14
Debian 10 64bits
No error messages to open or save odt and ods files


On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:02 AM Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> test14 is ready for testing!
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Wiki Publisher

[Jim Jagielski]

Do we have the capability to do such migration? If the LO patches are under 
MPL, then we can't use them.

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 3:19 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
> 
> I hope I have some time soon to start migrating some LO Patches around the 
> wiki Publisher, we are very likely to be able to use.
> 
> 
> Am 26.10.20 um 15:52 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Hi Joost,
>> 
>> Am 26.10.20 um 13:19 schrieb Joost Andrae:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>> 
>>> I've just tried it out against a different MediaWiki and I can confirm
>>> it is running well !
>> Thanks, that's great news!
>> 
>> @Keith: Is this useful for your documentation efforts?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>Matthias
>> 
>>> Best regards, Joost
>>> 
>>> Am 26.10.2020 um 00:53 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Hi all,
 
 I just discovered that the Wiki Publisher we build with AOO 4.1.8 does
 seem to work!
 
 https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Test-MS
 
 The remaining problem is that it does not get bundled with the release.
 I will investigate further...
 
 Can you please test:
 
 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/wiki-publisher.oxt
 
 Regards,
 
 Matthias
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: test12 (Was: Re: test11 (Was: Re: test2 is ready to run))

[Jim Jagielski]

test14 is ready for testing!

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Wiki Publisher

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 27.10.20 um 08:19 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> I hope I have some time soon to start migrating some LO Patches around
> the wiki Publisher, we are very likely to be able to use.

That would be great!

I have come to the conclusion, that we should offer our Wiki Publisher
on extensions.o.o
The one from Sun is not functional anymore, I believe.

I would start that after the release of 4.1.8 when we have a full
localized build of it.

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>
> Am 26.10.20 um 15:52 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Hi Joost,
>>
>> Am 26.10.20 um 13:19 schrieb Joost Andrae:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> I've just tried it out against a different MediaWiki and I can confirm
>>> it is running well !
>> Thanks, that's great news!
>>
>> @Keith: Is this useful for your documentation efforts?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>     Matthias
>>
>>> Best regards, Joost
>>>
>>> Am 26.10.2020 um 00:53 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Hi all,

 I just discovered that the Wiki Publisher we build with AOO 4.1.8 does
 seem to work!

 https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Test-MS

 The remaining problem is that it does not get bundled with the
 release.
 I will investigate further...

 Can you please test:

 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/wiki-publisher.oxt

 Regards,

  Matthias


>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Wiki Publisher

[Peter Kovacs]

I hope I have some time soon to start migrating some LO Patches around 
the wiki Publisher, we are very likely to be able to use.



Am 26.10.20 um 15:52 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Hi Joost,

Am 26.10.20 um 13:19 schrieb Joost Andrae:

Hi Matthias,

I've just tried it out against a different MediaWiki and I can confirm
it is running well !

Thanks, that's great news!

@Keith: Is this useful for your documentation efforts?

Regards,

    Matthias


Best regards, Joost

Am 26.10.2020 um 00:53 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Hi all,

I just discovered that the Wiki Publisher we build with AOO 4.1.8 does
seem to work!

https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Test-MS

The remaining problem is that it does not get bundled with the release.
I will investigate further...

Can you please test:

https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/wiki-publisher.oxt

Regards,

     Matthias





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org