Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 11:56 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
>  wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> > > apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> > > seems like an oversight.
> > > 
> > > I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> > > agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> > > 
> > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> > > 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> > > 
> > > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > > following drivers:
> > > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > > user base).
> > 
> > So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
> > on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
> > all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
> 
> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
> 
> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
> comes off more favorable:
> 
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> 
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
> - The generic IPP driver
> 
> To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
> properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
> proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
> that must work.
> 
> How does that sound to people?

There was broad support for this proposal both on lists and in
meetings, so I am now implementing it with minor tweaks. Thanks
Stephen!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Zdenek Dohnal]

On 3/12/19 11:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:53 AM Zdenek Dohnal  wrote:
>> IMHO Stephen meant it as driverless 'driver' or IPP everywhere enabled
>> printer, since 'generic IPP driver' does not exist.
> OK.
>
>>> What supports IPP Everywhere out of the box?
>>>
>>> Any computer running CUPS 1.5 or later
>> I beg to differ that it is not entirely correct.
> I got that straight out of the IPP Everywhere FAQ, but the point I did
> not state and should have is, Fedora 30 definitely far exceeds the
> minimum requirement. That was also the point of pointing out Android
> 4.4 supports it.
>
>
>>> Proposal for Fedora 30: If anyone is able to, with reasonable effort,
>>> successfully run the agreed test cases to any printer supporting IPP
>>> 2.0 or higher, using whatever driver is required, then we don't block.
>> I would go with 'if printing works on IPP everywhere printer available
>> for Fedora QA' (hooray, we have one :) ) 'then do not block'. But it
>> seems as technicality...
> I'm completely fine with narrowing this to an IPP Everywhere printer
> for Fedora 30. From yesterday's QA meeting, I was understanding they
> don't have an IPP Everywhere printer, but figured it should be
> possible to track down an IPP 2.0+ printer. So yeah if there's an IPP
> Everwhere test printer handy, just go with that from the outset.
>
I'm not entirely sure who is exactly meant as Fedora QA to be honest.
IMHO since most developers in Fedora works on RHEL+CentOS too, I would
expect similar thing on QA part. And RHEL QE now has IPP  Everywhere
printer available, so as CUPS maintainer can test if it works.

-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:53 AM Zdenek Dohnal  wrote:
>
> IMHO Stephen meant it as driverless 'driver' or IPP everywhere enabled
> printer, since 'generic IPP driver' does not exist.

OK.

> >
> > What supports IPP Everywhere out of the box?
> >
> > Any computer running CUPS 1.5 or later
> I beg to differ that it is not entirely correct.

I got that straight out of the IPP Everywhere FAQ, but the point I did
not state and should have is, Fedora 30 definitely far exceeds the
minimum requirement. That was also the point of pointing out Android
4.4 supports it.


> > Proposal for Fedora 30: If anyone is able to, with reasonable effort,
> > successfully run the agreed test cases to any printer supporting IPP
> > 2.0 or higher, using whatever driver is required, then we don't block.
>
> I would go with 'if printing works on IPP everywhere printer available
> for Fedora QA' (hooray, we have one :) ) 'then do not block'. But it
> seems as technicality...

I'm completely fine with narrowing this to an IPP Everywhere printer
for Fedora 30. From yesterday's QA meeting, I was understanding they
don't have an IPP Everywhere printer, but figured it should be
possible to track down an IPP 2.0+ printer. So yeah if there's an IPP
Everwhere test printer handy, just go with that from the outset.

-- 
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Zdenek Dohnal]

On 3/11/19 10:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:56 PM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
>
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that non-ridiculous
>> differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working". In
>> general, we'll apply the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" principle here
>> when deciding whether a print glitch is truly blocking.)
>>
>> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
>> * Printing must work (as defined above) on at least one printer using
>> each of the following drivers:
>> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
>> - The generic IPP driver
>> * For each blocking desktop, it must be possible to print:
>> - A test page from the desktop environment's built-in "test page"
>> feature, if such a feature exists.
>> - A simple text document of at least 100 words (lorem ipsum) from
>> the standard basic text editor accompanying that desktop.
>>
>> This does not mean that all printers need to function properly that
>> use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
>> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). We won't specify any
>> particular hardware makes or models that must work.
> I think "generic IPP driver" needs to be more specifically stated.
>
> There's IPP protocol versions 1.1, 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2. The "driverless"
> specification is IPP Everywhere, which uses IPP protocol versions 2.0
> or higher, along with additional requirements to support driverless
> device discovery and printing of text and images. There isn't strictly
> speaking a generic IPP driver, although PCL and PostScript are common.
IMHO Stephen meant it as driverless 'driver' or IPP everywhere enabled
printer, since 'generic IPP driver' does not exist.
>
> What supports IPP Everywhere out of the box?
>
> Any computer running CUPS 1.5 or later
I beg to differ that it is not entirely correct. Yes, there are some
features for driverless support in <2.1.0 (approximately), but since it
was not so widely used at that time, some features were still missing or
needed some more tweaks for make it right.
> Mobile devices running Android 4.4 and later
>
> Proposal for Fedora 30: If anyone is able to, with reasonable effort,
> successfully run the agreed test cases to any printer supporting IPP
> 2.0 or higher, using whatever driver is required, then we don't block.

I would go with 'if printing works on IPP everywhere printer available
for Fedora QA' (hooray, we have one :) ) 'then do not block'. But it
seems as technicality...

IMHO blocking the release if 'whatever' IPP everywhere printer does not
work seems like a trap to me - you basically believe that every printer
vendor implemented their IPP server and used HTTP server (IPP is
transfered by HTTP protocol) into printers firmware correctly - which is
not true till now.

> Proposal for Fedora 31: If anyone is able to, with reasonable effort,
> successfully run the agreed test cases to any IPP Everywhere printer,
> then we don't block.
>
> Something I need to dig into deeper is how to create a virtual IPP
> Everywhere printer (a service); which would be useful for testing, in
> particular automated testing such that the virtual printer itself says
> "yes this is a valid print job".
ippsample project does that, you can find it in that github link you
posted, together with sample of ippserver, which should become 'server
solution' for CUPS (the idea is to use CUPS only as client app, and any
infrastructure servers will run only IPP server, which will present
printers to other machines).
>  But also it might be possible to
> bridge the virtual IPP Everywhere printer with a conventional
> CUPS+gimp/foomatic driver based printer.

This idea is similar to which Mike Sweet presented on PWG meetup last
year - printer applications - combination of IPP server(not
CUPS)+specific printer driver provider. I created a report from that PWG
meetup, please see that.

I plan to add all these projects into Fedora to have fully IPP
everywhere solution (ippusbx, ipp-selfcert, ippsample), but not so much
time to do it yet...

>  If so, I'm thinking Fedora
> IoT on a Raspberry Pi Zero W, using a static containerized approach,
> that once working, should be a reliable indicator that any failures
> coinciding with print pipeline changes in the client, are in fact
> client bugs. But we'll see about that.
>
> This might be useful:
> IPP Everywhere mini-tutorial
> https://github.com/apple/cups/wiki/IPP-(Everywhere)-Mini-Tutorial
>
> Other references:
> IPP Everywhere FAQ:
> https://www.pwg.org/ipp/evefaq.html
>
> IPP Everywhere self-certified printers list:
> https://www.pwg.org/dynamo/eveprinters.php
>
-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

PWG plenary
===

- more meet-ups in aug, november
- pwg membership - redhat doesn't have
- PWG group - chair Smith Kennedy, vice chair Alan 

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:56 PM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:

> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that non-ridiculous
> differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working". In
> general, we'll apply the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" principle here
> when deciding whether a print glitch is truly blocking.)
>
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work (as defined above) on at least one printer using
> each of the following drivers:
> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
> - The generic IPP driver
> * For each blocking desktop, it must be possible to print:
> - A test page from the desktop environment's built-in "test page"
> feature, if such a feature exists.
> - A simple text document of at least 100 words (lorem ipsum) from
> the standard basic text editor accompanying that desktop.
>
> This does not mean that all printers need to function properly that
> use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). We won't specify any
> particular hardware makes or models that must work.

I think "generic IPP driver" needs to be more specifically stated.

There's IPP protocol versions 1.1, 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2. The "driverless"
specification is IPP Everywhere, which uses IPP protocol versions 2.0
or higher, along with additional requirements to support driverless
device discovery and printing of text and images. There isn't strictly
speaking a generic IPP driver, although PCL and PostScript are common.

What supports IPP Everywhere out of the box?

Any computer running CUPS 1.5 or later
Mobile devices running Android 4.4 and later

Proposal for Fedora 30: If anyone is able to, with reasonable effort,
successfully run the agreed test cases to any printer supporting IPP
2.0 or higher, using whatever driver is required, then we don't block.
Proposal for Fedora 31: If anyone is able to, with reasonable effort,
successfully run the agreed test cases to any IPP Everywhere printer,
then we don't block.

Something I need to dig into deeper is how to create a virtual IPP
Everywhere printer (a service); which would be useful for testing, in
particular automated testing such that the virtual printer itself says
"yes this is a valid print job". But also it might be possible to
bridge the virtual IPP Everywhere printer with a conventional
CUPS+gimp/foomatic driver based printer. If so, I'm thinking Fedora
IoT on a Raspberry Pi Zero W, using a static containerized approach,
that once working, should be a reliable indicator that any failures
coinciding with print pipeline changes in the client, are in fact
client bugs. But we'll see about that.

This might be useful:
IPP Everywhere mini-tutorial
https://github.com/apple/cups/wiki/IPP-(Everywhere)-Mini-Tutorial

Other references:
IPP Everywhere FAQ:
https://www.pwg.org/ipp/evefaq.html

IPP Everywhere self-certified printers list:
https://www.pwg.org/dynamo/eveprinters.php

-- 
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Zdenek Dohnal]

+1, I agree with proposed text.

On 2/28/19 10:56 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending
> my response now.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> comments are in the text:
>>
>> On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy  
>>> wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher  
 wrote:
> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>
> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
> comes off more favorable:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
 Does the criterion  pply strictly to the printing of text and line
 art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
 latter:

 ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; 
 or
 ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"

 Major defined as any of:
 obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
 color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
 white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
 tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
 or more test images

 With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
 bugs as blockers.

>>> I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
>>> blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
>>> on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
>>> just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.
>> I agree with Stephen - such topics can be really subjective and even the
>> fault does not have to be on Fedora side (f.e. when you catch the file
>> which goes to the printer, you look into it and it looks fine, but
>> output paper has 'slightly' different colors, scale etc... - so there
>> can be issues in the printer itself).
 Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
 initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
 application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
 functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
 installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
 and evince?

>>> How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
>>> whichever basic text editor comes with it.
>> IMHO it is not correct blocker criteria for printing as itself, but it
>> is more like blocker for these applications. AFAIK blocker is the issue,
>> which can not be worked around - if the file is printable by CUPS CLI
>> commands 'lp'/'lpr', but not from a app, IMHO it is not blocker for
>> printing.
>>
>> IMO issues like 'not being able to print from X application' should be
>> blocking/release criteria for some common/widely used apps like
>> Firefox/evince/libreoffice, not for printing itself. (If the issue would
>> be actually connected to CUPS, I'll cooperate with them to fix the issue).
>>
> Well, we don't have to be that specific in the release criteria,
> honestly. We're talking about blocker criteria specifically for
> blocking desktops, so in my opinion it's okay to have "test page" and
> "basic text editor" as the stand-ins for this. (This is similar to how
> we have "package manager must be able to download and apply updates"
> as a stand-in for "the network must not be totally broken".)
>
> I'd be fine if we wanted to add a corollary that either of these are
> not blockers if it can be shown that other applications can print
> successfully. I just wanted to suggest those as the basic litmus test.
>
 Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
 test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
 purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
 and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
 various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
 Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
 gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
 a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
 entire test suites):
 https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files
>> Chris, would you mind elaborating more on the topic of these test files
>> and tests from these sources? Martin (mosvald in CC) 

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Stephen Gallagher]

I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending
my response now.


On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> comments are in the text:
>
> On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy  
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher  
> >> wrote:
> >>> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
> >>>
> >>> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> >>> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
> >>> comes off more favorable:
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> >>> 30+:
> >>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> >>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> >>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> >>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> >> Does the criterion  pply strictly to the printing of text and line
> >> art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
> >> latter:
> >>
> >> ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; 
> >> or
> >> ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
> >>
> >> Major defined as any of:
> >> obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
> >> color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
> >> white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
> >> tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
> >> or more test images
> >>
> >> With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
> >> bugs as blockers.
> >>
> > I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
> > blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
> > on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
> > just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.
> I agree with Stephen - such topics can be really subjective and even the
> fault does not have to be on Fedora side (f.e. when you catch the file
> which goes to the printer, you look into it and it looks fine, but
> output paper has 'slightly' different colors, scale etc... - so there
> can be issues in the printer itself).
> >
> >> Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
> >> initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
> >> application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
> >> functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
> >> installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
> >> and evince?
> >>
> > How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
> > whichever basic text editor comes with it.
>
> IMHO it is not correct blocker criteria for printing as itself, but it
> is more like blocker for these applications. AFAIK blocker is the issue,
> which can not be worked around - if the file is printable by CUPS CLI
> commands 'lp'/'lpr', but not from a app, IMHO it is not blocker for
> printing.
>
> IMO issues like 'not being able to print from X application' should be
> blocking/release criteria for some common/widely used apps like
> Firefox/evince/libreoffice, not for printing itself. (If the issue would
> be actually connected to CUPS, I'll cooperate with them to fix the issue).
>

Well, we don't have to be that specific in the release criteria,
honestly. We're talking about blocker criteria specifically for
blocking desktops, so in my opinion it's okay to have "test page" and
"basic text editor" as the stand-ins for this. (This is similar to how
we have "package manager must be able to download and apply updates"
as a stand-in for "the network must not be totally broken".)

I'd be fine if we wanted to add a corollary that either of these are
not blockers if it can be shown that other applications can print
successfully. I just wanted to suggest those as the basic litmus test.

> >
> >> Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
> >> test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
> >> purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
> >> and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
> >> various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
> >> Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
> >> gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
> >> a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
> >> entire test suites):
> >> https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files
>
> Chris, would you mind elaborating more on the topic of these test files
> and tests from these sources? Martin (mosvald in CC) currently does only
> comparing sample file and output file in ghostscript and I'm on my way
> to do it the similar 

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Zdenek Dohnal]

Hi,

comments are in the text:

On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy  wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher  
>> wrote:
>>> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>>>
>>> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
>>> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
>>> comes off more favorable:
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
>>> 30+:
>>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
>>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>> Does the criterion  pply strictly to the printing of text and line
>> art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
>> latter:
>>
>> ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or
>> ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
>>
>> Major defined as any of:
>> obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
>> color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
>> white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
>> tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
>> or more test images
>>
>> With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
>> bugs as blockers.
>>
> I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
> blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
> on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
> just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.
I agree with Stephen - such topics can be really subjective and even the
fault does not have to be on Fedora side (f.e. when you catch the file
which goes to the printer, you look into it and it looks fine, but
output paper has 'slightly' different colors, scale etc... - so there
can be issues in the printer itself).
>
>> Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
>> initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
>> application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
>> functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
>> installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
>> and evince?
>>
> How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
> whichever basic text editor comes with it.

IMHO it is not correct blocker criteria for printing as itself, but it
is more like blocker for these applications. AFAIK blocker is the issue,
which can not be worked around - if the file is printable by CUPS CLI
commands 'lp'/'lpr', but not from a app, IMHO it is not blocker for
printing.

IMO issues like 'not being able to print from X application' should be
blocking/release criteria for some common/widely used apps like
Firefox/evince/libreoffice, not for printing itself. (If the issue would
be actually connected to CUPS, I'll cooperate with them to fix the issue).

>
>> Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
>> test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
>> purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
>> and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
>> various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
>> Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
>> gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
>> a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
>> entire test suites):
>> https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files

Chris, would you mind elaborating more on the topic of these test files
and tests from these sources? Martin (mosvald in CC) currently does only
comparing sample file and output file in ghostscript and I'm on my way
to do it the similar way in CUPS and printer driver packages.

Do they have special tests available to look into them? I saw mostly
only pdf file in ECI downloads, I did not see anything in GWG and only
docx or xlsx files in libreoffice tests.

>>
>> The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
>> in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
>> familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
>> back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
>> bug?" etc.
>>
>>
> This sounds useful for automating the tests, but I think in general we
> don't need to write this into the criteria. They don't need to be that
> specific.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
>>> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
>>> following drivers:
>>> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
>>> - The generic IPP driver
>>>
>>> To clarify, 

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
> >
> > I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> > criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
> > comes off more favorable:
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> > 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
> Does the criterion  pply strictly to the printing of text and line
> art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
> latter:
>
> ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or
> ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
>
> Major defined as any of:
> obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
> color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
> white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
> tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
> or more test images
>
> With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
> bugs as blockers.
>

I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.

> Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
> initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
> application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
> functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
> installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
> and evince?
>

How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
whichever basic text editor comes with it.

> Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
> test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
> purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
> and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
> various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
> Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
> gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
> a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
> entire test suites):
> https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files
>
> The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
> in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
> familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
> back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
> bug?" etc.
>
>

This sounds useful for automating the tests, but I think in general we
don't need to write this into the criteria. They don't need to be that
specific.


>
>
>
> > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > following drivers:
> > - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
> > - The generic IPP driver
> >
> > To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
> > properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
> > know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
> > proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
> > that must work.
>
> I agree with this. One possible sanity test:
>
> 1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the
> built-in print to PDF driver)
> 2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized
> test file, to the designated IPP printer.
>
> i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on
> scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria:
>
> a. PDF file is created from test document
> b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer
> c. PDF file is printed
> d. Test document is printed
> e. minor differences aside: b, c, and d should not cause a WTF
> reaction by a human
>

That seems reasonable, though I'd rather have Master Wordsmith Adam
Williamson phrase that better.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Chris Murphy]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> > > apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> > > seems like an oversight.
> > >
> > > I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> > > agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> > > 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> > >
> > > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > > following drivers:
> > > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > > user base).
> >
> > So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
> > on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
> > all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
>
>
> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>
> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
> comes off more favorable:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)

Does the criterion  pply strictly to the printing of text and line
art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
latter:

^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or
^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"

Major defined as any of:
obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
or more test images

With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
bugs as blockers.

Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
and evince?

Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
entire test suites):
https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files

The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
bug?" etc.





> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
> - The generic IPP driver
>
> To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
> properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
> proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
> that must work.

I agree with this. One possible sanity test:

1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the
built-in print to PDF driver)
2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized
test file, to the designated IPP printer.

i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on
scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria:

a. PDF file is created from test document
b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer
c. PDF 

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> > apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> > seems like an oversight.
> >
> > I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> > agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> > 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> >
> > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > following drivers:
> > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > user base).
>
> So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
> on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
> all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!


Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.

I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
comes off more favorable:

I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)

and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
- The built-in print-to-PDF driver
- The generic IPP driver

To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
that must work.

How does that sound to people?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
> 
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> 
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> 
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).

So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Zdenek Dohnal]

On 9/20/18 6:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Peter Robinson  wrote:
>>> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
>>> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
>>> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
>>> seems like an oversight.
>>>
>>> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
>>> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
>>> 30+:
>>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
>>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>>>
>>> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
>>> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
>>> following drivers:
>>> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
>>> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
>>> user base).
>> I'm against this as a blocker for a number of reasons:
>> * When we've tried to do hardware specific blocking at the time like
>> dual boot with MacOS this has not worked well and the dual boot is
>> testable with one piece of hardware
>> * It's easy to do a zero day update or a standard update to fix it
>> post release as doesn't affect the install path
>> * We don't do it for other non critical hardware selections such as
>> digital cameras, video cameras, and other such things
>> * Hardware availability, I don't see blocking for one type of printer
>> over another type is a good use of our time.
>
> I think it's reasonable to block on some really basic aspects of
> printing breakage, like not being able to print to a PDF file, and
> possibly being unable to print to the far simpler realm of IPP
> Everywhere printers.
>
> But model specific stuff. No way. I'd be generous with freeze
> exceptions, but not blocking the release. I'm even on the fence if I'd
> actually block on IPP Everywhere printing being broken. Once we're at
> a blocker, do we have the resources to get it fixed within a few days?
> If not, forget it. It can't be a blocker if we don't have the
> resources to support fixing the blocker in a time escalated manner.
>
>
IMHO for the specific stuff (main printer drivers packages - hplip,
foomatic+foomatic-db, gutenprint) we could do a test of general
functionality - like if there is at least one printer which works with
ppd from the package, then package seems to okay to go.

-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Peter Robinson  wrote:
>> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
>> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
>> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
>> seems like an oversight.
>>
>> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
>> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
>>
>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
>> 30+:
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>>
>> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
>> following drivers:
>> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
>> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
>> user base).
>
> I'm against this as a blocker for a number of reasons:
> * When we've tried to do hardware specific blocking at the time like
> dual boot with MacOS this has not worked well and the dual boot is
> testable with one piece of hardware
> * It's easy to do a zero day update or a standard update to fix it
> post release as doesn't affect the install path
> * We don't do it for other non critical hardware selections such as
> digital cameras, video cameras, and other such things
> * Hardware availability, I don't see blocking for one type of printer
> over another type is a good use of our time.


I think it's reasonable to block on some really basic aspects of
printing breakage, like not being able to print to a PDF file, and
possibly being unable to print to the far simpler realm of IPP
Everywhere printers.

But model specific stuff. No way. I'd be generous with freeze
exceptions, but not blocking the release. I'm even on the fence if I'd
actually block on IPP Everywhere printing being broken. Once we're at
a blocker, do we have the resources to get it fixed within a few days?
If not, forget it. It can't be a blocker if we don't have the
resources to support fixing the blocker in a time escalated manner.


-- 
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Peter Robinson]

> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
>
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).

I'm against this as a blocker for a number of reasons:
* When we've tried to do hardware specific blocking at the time like
dual boot with MacOS this has not worked well and the dual boot is
testable with one piece of hardware
* It's easy to do a zero day update or a standard update to fix it
post release as doesn't affect the install path
* We don't do it for other non critical hardware selections such as
digital cameras, video cameras, and other such things
* Hardware availability, I don't see blocking for one type of printer
over another type is a good use of our time.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Zdenek Dohnal]

Hi,

as CUPS maintainer, I agree with the idea of working printing as beta
criteria for Fedora.

I have two printers (Canon, HP) at my disposal, which I test cups,
cups-filters and hplip on when they have rebase. IMO it would be perfect
if such tests can be run every time when a component, which CUPS
requires, have an update - this way I could get know of glibc change or
nsswitch change sooner...

I can cover two printer driver software, hplip and foomatic-db+foomatic
with this testing (at least for these two printer models), but I would
need other printers for others (like gutenprint, foo2zjs, not mention
3rd party ones like brother, lexmark, epson) and especially a printer
which is capable of driver-less printing (like IPP everywhere standard,
or Airprint), which is the newest way how to install printers (I mean
most printers with release date after 2010). It would be great that we
can test it out too...

This way I would like to reach who they have such printers and asked
them for cooperation with testing - preferably on every cups update test
if printer works as it should.

According cups-pdf, which is different project and isn't under my
maintenance, I'm not sure, but I'm CCing cups-pdf maintainer, if he can
say more about it. The same can be said about ghostscript - it should be
tested properly too.

On 9/20/18 4:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 7:50 AM Stephen Gallagher  > wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton  > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher
> mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta
> for Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to
> Fedora QA.
> > > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that
> differences in
> > > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> > >
> > +1 to this
> >
> > > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > > following drivers:
> > > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our
> expected
> > > user base).
>
>
>
> Print to file (PDF) is available by default and should be in the list. 
> " work" means
> - creates a file that, when opened with the default PDF reader and in
> Firefox using its built-in PDF support, is reasonably similar to
> the preview shown on the GNOME print preview display.
>
> As for a real printer, I suggest limiting it to an IPP Everywhere
> printer (any make and model), also known as driverless printing.
>
> Otherwise you can quickly get stuck in the mud.
>
>
>
>  So I'd suggest that this criteria
> essentially means "We block if it is *known* to fail".
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Chris Murphy
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 7:50 AM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for
> Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> > >
> > +1 to this
> >
> > > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > > following drivers:
> > > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > > user base).
>


Print to file (PDF) is available by default and should be in the list.
" work" means
- creates a file that, when opened with the default PDF reader and in
Firefox using its built-in PDF support, is reasonably similar to
the preview shown on the GNOME print preview display.

As for a real printer, I suggest limiting it to an IPP Everywhere printer
(any make and model), also known as driverless printing.

Otherwise you can quickly get stuck in the mud.



 So I'd suggest that this criteria
> essentially means "We block if it is *known* to fail".



+1

Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 
> > 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> >
> +1 to this
>
> > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > following drivers:
> > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > user base).
> >
> My main concern here is making sure QA has at least one of each of the
> necessary printers. That could get large pretty quickly if we're not
> careful. I'm also concerned that we could end up blocking the final
> because a printer broke or is out of ink, or other hardware failure. I
> think I'd rather keep the Beta proposal for Final. Since we have no
> criterion currently, adding the Beta criterion is an improvement. We
> can always make the requirement more aggressive if it turns out to be
> insufficient.

We do in fact have criteria that we cannot always verify (like the
Serial-Attached SCSI criteria). In this case, we don't always test it,
but if someone who does have that hardware reports that it doesn't
work, we generally will block on it. So I'd suggest that this criteria
essentially means "We block if it is *known* to fail".
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Ben Cotton]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
+1 to this

> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).
>
My main concern here is making sure QA has at least one of each of the
necessary printers. That could get large pretty quickly if we're not
careful. I'm also concerned that we could end up blocking the final
because a printer broke or is out of ink, or other hardware failure. I
think I'd rather keep the Beta proposal for Final. Since we have no
criterion currently, adding the Beta criterion is an improvement. We
can always make the requirement more aggressive if it turns out to be
insufficient.

-- 
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Jared K. Smith]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:40 AM Stephen Gallagher 
wrote:

> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
> 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>


> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
>

I'm in agreement here -- they seem like very reasonable criteria.  As for
the printer drivers, I think that the Postscript ought to be in the list,
and perhaps something along the lines of HP LaserJet 4, as there are lots
and lots and lots of printers that try to stay compatible with that.  I'd
also love to see "Print to PDF" added to that list, as I find myself using
that more and more as time goes on.

-Jared
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Petr Šabata]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:33:05AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
> 
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> 
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> 
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).

Makes sense overall.

Perhaps we could compose a list of major CUPS drivers and make
sure we test each with at least one printer.

P

> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628255


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Vít Ondruch]

This one is interesting as well, since I was bitten by it:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614978


V.


Dne 20.9.2018 v 14:33 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
>
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).
>
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628255
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

[Stephen Gallagher]

There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.

I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.

I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)

and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).


[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628255
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org