Re: [dev] Volunteer for #5487
On 2008.10.09. 03:49, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hola Leandro, Leandro Doctors escribió: Hi I'm interested in helping with #5487[0]. this issue is already assigned to a developer: mod, who implemented the Notes2 functionality for Writer, and he is surely already working on that (if not yet finished!); so you may think about picking another issue (if you're a beginner with OOo core, search for the one with keyword easy2dev). it's status is still set to NEW, though - and it is an ooold issue. so maybe it is worth contacting dev who has it assigned to right now and ask whether any help is needed (yes, i am interested in enhanced functionality in this area ;) ). I have programming skills. How can I contribute? You can start checking the sources and trying to build. Start with http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/I_want_to_be_an_OpenOffice.org_developer Regards Ariel. Cheers, Leandro [0] http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5487 -- Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Volunteer for #5487
Hi, I'm interested in helping with #5487[0]. this issue is already assigned to a developer: mod, who implemented the Notes2 functionality for Writer, and he is surely already working on that (if not yet finished!); No, I did not start yet. As far as I know, there is some refactoring currently going on in the Writer, with the outcoming class, it should be easier to implement. So discussion should take place on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, maybe mba can comment on the current status. In my opinion, this is not the easiest issue to start, but of course you can always prove me wrong ;-) Best regards Max - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Writer Code Conventions / Cpp Coding Standards
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:02:46PM +0200, bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany wrote: OpenOffice.org has these Coding Standards: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Cpp_Coding_Standards As a new member in the writer team I tried to find some additional conventions that are current (good) practice. The results incorporating the feedback from other members of the writer team can be found here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer_Code_Conventions Since the effort to codify some of the conventions tacitly agreed upon was generally well received, I thought I might post it as a inspiration for all OOo devs. Hey Bjoern, I generally like the idea of documenting intra-module coding conventions (as sadly, OOo has quite a range, stylistically, across different modules). That said, as seemingly the listed conventions go beyond existing Writer code (i.e. the parts that suggest refactoring, and the 'general' section), and therefore might have general applicability for the OOo code base, let me point out a few problems: Generally, the list seems fairly parallel to the coding standards, there are places where coding standard items are just repeated or refined (e.g. when to make a header external, namespaces, encapsulation, pimpl) - I would love to have this cross-referenced, or even moved to the 'details' section of the coding standard. This would improve the coding standards digestability, shorten your list, and save people generally aware of the coding standards some reading time. Some misc stuff: - I like the module organization section, but would add more, like e.g. the convention of building libs one directory up (for Writer), what generally the util prj dirs are for what they should contain. Maybe keeping filenames all-lowercase is a bit anachronistic - but keeping them [a-zA-Z0-9.-] seems still crucial. I'd relax the strict .hxx|.h rule a bit, taking udk headers for example, which split templates up into separate declaration definition files - the formatting section is probably the most controversial one (and that's one of the reasons we didn't specify that in the coding standards). Either skip it as well, or at least refrain from catering for tools like lxr (which is obsolete now anyways). The most frequent reader of the code is still you, and your fellow devs (using a proper editor) - strive to make code readable *there*. - in the general section, why the reference to cantrip.org? I fail to see the connection (though deriving virtually from an interface does have its merits). Also, recommending SAL_NO_VTABLE for interfaces seems beneficial. - maybe some words about SAL_DLLPUBLIC_EXPORT/SAL_DLLPUBLIC_IMPORT/ SAL_DLLPRIVATE in the encapsulation part? None of the conventions are obligatory for anybody, of cause, but they might make life a bit easier for all (especially for newcomers). Yes, definitely. And well worth getting Writer (and other modules) closer to this. But I still have mixed emotions about the minutiae of formatting - why not simply referencing http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Editor_Emacs for people that use a proper editor, and otherwise acknowledging that code written by people that have *any* sense of style is generally perfectly readable? ;) Cheers, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Tabs (was: VCS Keywords in License Headers)
On 10/08/08 12:09, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
The tabs converted to spaces issue seems somewhat more controversial. At
least we have to move it out of the migration phase. I've played with
the idea of a pre-commit formatting check and it's clear that a little
thought has to go in this. Removing the tabs out of POSIX style
makefiles might not be a good idea :)
What is especially problematic is the (partial) use of tabs instead of
spaces in source code combined with the unfortunate, uncommon convention
of a tab width of four (instead of the universal eight).
To the newcomer or casual visitor to the OOo source (who by default uses
a tab width of eight) many files will present themselves as having been
written by programmers too incompetent to even do basic source code
formatting in a reasonable way:
if (something)
{
do-one();
do-two();
}
I, for one, would not bother to look deeper into a project like that
after such a first impression...
-Stephan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] testautomation the effects on the CWS process
Hi Helge, fellow devs, reading this http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/fixing_or_adapting_automated_tests I think the rules (and maybe the hurdles) for CWS have changed substantially, but I cannot seem to find http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies updated - so, as a dev, what _specifically_ do I have to do for my CWS now? Run all automated tests after every code change, to notice if they break (or are the tinderboxen running autotests)? Run them all prior to setting Ready for QA state, and calling in a test writer only then? Is it acceptable if I fix the tests myself? Is there a list of tests that _must_ pass, and what kind of functionality do they cover? (this http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/test_code_on_it_s list might contain a few answers, but is IMO still far away from an executable do this, do that, then done explanation) Sorry for being ignorant, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
