Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

Am 2017-05-03 12:45, schrieb Lex Trotman: On 1 May 2017 at 23:32, Frank Lanitz wrote: On 29.04.2017 03:35, Lex Trotman wrote: We really NEED automatic UI testing and we NEED function unit testing, but realistically we are not going to get either. If we don't have

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 1 May 2017 at 23:32, Frank Lanitz wrote: > On 29.04.2017 03:35, Lex Trotman wrote: >> We really NEED automatic UI testing and we NEED function unit testing, >> but realistically we are not going to get either. If we don't have >> enough resources to just run and test PRs

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 29.04.2017 03:35, Lex Trotman wrote: > We really NEED automatic UI testing and we NEED function unit testing, > but realistically we are not going to get either. If we don't have > enough resources to just run and test PRs we don't have the resources > to add these. Would it help if we can

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: > We really should publish it as the basic process for building from git > and nightly, and a definitive list of dependencies and tools, the > README waffles on about all the GTK deps etc. makes it sound complex > but they

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 29 April 2017 at 23:15, Vasiliy Faronov wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: >> The vast majority are therefore not testing anything in master prior >> to release, so they are not helping stabilise the release. Thats no >> help.

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 28.04.2017 23:35, Thomas Martitz wrote: > > Unless this situation improves, I'm afraid that intensive testing of PRs > is nice but kind of a wasted effort. This is worsened by the fact that > "unpreviliged" testers can't assign labels in Github, it's really hard > to get an overview about

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: > The vast majority are therefore not testing anything in master prior > to release, so they are not helping stabilise the release. Thats no > help. (Of course users are not expected to help stabilise the > release). By the

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

... >> I have to agree with Matthew that: >> >> 1. Nobody wants to break master because its what everybody is using. >> Problem is that if we had a development branch nobody would be using >> it because it might break, so its insufficiently tested. I don't have >> a solution to that. > > > master

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

Am 29.04.2017 um 02:35 schrieb Lex Trotman: On 29 April 2017 at 09:55, Matthew Brush wrote: On 2017-04-28 02:35 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 27.04.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Vasiliy Faronov: Hi all, From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the things

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

As an exercise I scanned the top few (highest numbered) PRs to assess their commitability from MY personal point of view, found one immediately committable and did, the rest are: #1482 still open question if it should revert to previous bad behaviour. #1481 work in progress #1478 improvement

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 2017-04-28 06:35 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: ... Geany is almost entirely an interactive application, so until interactive tests are possible I don't think technical tests like these will add a great deal to the committability of PRs. If the tests just test functions, all it needs is to get

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

... >> >> Geany is almost entirely an interactive application, so until >> interactive tests are possible I don't think technical tests like >> these will add a great deal to the committability of PRs. > > > If the tests just test functions, all it needs is to get Geany started up, > then the

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 2017-04-28 05:35 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: On 29 April 2017 at 09:55, Matthew Brush wrote: On 2017-04-28 02:35 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 27.04.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Vasiliy Faronov: Hi all, From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the things

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 29 April 2017 at 09:55, Matthew Brush wrote: > On 2017-04-28 02:35 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: >> >> Am 27.04.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Vasiliy Faronov: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the >>> things holding back Geany

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

On 2017-04-28 02:35 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 27.04.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Vasiliy Faronov: Hi all, From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the things holding back Geany development right now is a need for more testing. Helping to test PRs is truly needed, and much

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

Am 27.04.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Vasiliy Faronov: Hi all, From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the things holding back Geany development right now is a need for more testing. Helping to test PRs is truly needed, and much appreciated. However, I do think that Geany

Re: [Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

Hi Vasily, On 28 April 2017 at 06:51, Vasiliy Faronov wrote: > Hi all, > > From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the > things holding back Geany development right now is a need for more > testing. I can only speak from my point of view, but I believe

[Geany-Devel] Helping Geany move forward: testing

Hi all, From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the things holding back Geany development right now is a need for more testing. I have some spare time that I can dedicate to exploratory testing of PRs to Geany and Geany-Plugins. I'm not a QA professional, but I am a