Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hey, On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:33 PM Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > The current practice is: if 'make check' passes (which is more or less > enforced by Jenkins) and the change looks good to a reviewer, the change > goes in. And then releases are based on time, so it's really rare that > there

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hey, On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:33 PM Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > The current practice is: if 'make check' passes (which is more or less > enforced by Jenkins) and the change looks good to a reviewer, the change > goes in. And then releases are based on time, so it's really rare that > there

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Le 07/03/2019 à 19:32, Markus Mohrhard a écrit : > Most likely no. If we have tests for something it is more likely that it > will be fixed after it is discovered by in the end an accessibility > regression is similar to any other regression. That means that a test > started failing you are

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hi, The current practice is: if 'make check' passes (which is more or less enforced by Jenkins) and the change looks good to a reviewer, the change goes in. And then releases are based on time, so it's really rare that there are "blocker" bugs which would delay a release. The ideal for any new

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Le 07/03/2019 à 19:32, Markus Mohrhard a écrit : > Most likely no. If we have tests for something it is more likely that it > will be fixed after it is discovered by in the end an accessibility > regression is similar to any other regression. That means that a test > started failing you are

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hey, let me at least add some comments. On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:42 PM Jean-Philippe MENGUAL < jean-philippe.meng...@libreoffice.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > Le 06/03/2019 à 20:52, Samuel Thibault a écrit : > > Hello, > > > > Markus Mohrhard, le lun. 25 févr. 2019 00:34:33 +0800, a ecrit: > >> On a

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hey, let me at least add some comments. On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:42 PM Jean-Philippe MENGUAL < jean-philippe.meng...@libreoffice.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > Le 06/03/2019 à 20:52, Samuel Thibault a écrit : > > Hello, > > > > Markus Mohrhard, le lun. 25 févr. 2019 00:34:33 +0800, a ecrit: > >> On a

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hi, Le 06/03/2019 à 20:52, Samuel Thibault a écrit : Hello, Markus Mohrhard, le lun. 25 févr. 2019 00:34:33 +0800, a ecrit: On a slightly related note I think that we have already quite a few tests for the accessibility UNO layer but as that layer is full of bugs many of the tests are

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hi, Le 06/03/2019 à 20:52, Samuel Thibault a écrit : Hello, Markus Mohrhard, le lun. 25 févr. 2019 00:34:33 +0800, a ecrit: On a slightly related note I think that we have already quite a few tests for the accessibility UNO layer but as that layer is full of bugs many of the tests are

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hello, Markus Mohrhard, le lun. 25 févr. 2019 00:34:33 +0800, a ecrit: > On a slightly related note I think that we have already quite a few tests for > the accessibility UNO layer but as that layer is full of bugs many of the > tests > are disabled. It might be a good idea to work on these

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Noel Grandin, le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 15:38:25 +0200, a ecrit: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 22:04, Samuel Thibault <[1]sthiba...@hypra.fr> wrote: > > The fact that even the C UI strings may change is a concern indeed. We > however don't really have another way to identify widgets, do we? (we >

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 22:04, Samuel Thibault wrote: > The fact that even the C UI strings may change is a concern indeed. We > however don't really have another way to identify widgets, do we? (we > don't want to identify them structurally, that'd be even less stable) > > The LibreOffice python

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 22:04, Samuel Thibault wrote: > The fact that even the C UI strings may change is a concern indeed. We > however don't really have another way to identify widgets, do we? (we > don't want to identify them structurally, that'd be even less stable) > > The LibreOffice python

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hello, Markus Mohrhard, le lun. 25 févr. 2019 00:34:33 +0800, a ecrit: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Samuel Thibault <[1]sthiba...@hypra.fr> wrote: > > > That said, we could as well make tests work at both layers. Run them > > along uitests, thus very frequently, and run them periodically

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hello Samuel, let me add a few comments based on many years implementing testing frameworks for LibreOffice and most recently working on the UI testing. On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Samuel Thibault wrote: > Noel Grandin, le sam. 23 févr. 2019 12:19:19 +0200, a ecrit: > > However, the

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hello Samuel, let me add a few comments based on many years implementing testing frameworks for LibreOffice and most recently working on the UI testing. On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Samuel Thibault wrote: > Noel Grandin, le sam. 23 févr. 2019 12:19:19 +0200, a ecrit: > > However, the

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Noel Grandin, le sam. 23 févr. 2019 12:19:19 +0200, a ecrit: > However, the current python UI test stuff talks directly to the vcl/ widgets. > But between the vcl/ widgets and an actual accessibility user lies at least > two > major chunks of code - the generic accessibility/ stuff, and the

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

So yes, the focus information would be fairly easy to expose to the python UI test infrastructure. And yes, it would be good to limit the number of different frameworks we use for testing (we already have 4 - C++ direct, C++ via UNO, Java via UNO, python via UNO) However, the current python UI

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

So yes, the focus information would be fairly easy to expose to the python UI test infrastructure. And yes, it would be good to limit the number of different frameworks we use for testing (we already have 4 - C++ direct, C++ via UNO, Java via UNO, python via UNO) However, the current python UI

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hi Samuel, On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Indeed, but AIUI the keyboard event synthesis is directly sent to the > expected ui object, so it doesn't check that e.g. when pressing F6 > several times in writer, the proper objects get focus. Or would it be >

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Miklos Vajna, le jeu. 21 févr. 2019 09:08:48 +0100, a ecrit: > Are you aware of > ? Sure :) > Seems there is some overlap between dogtail and uitests. Indeed, but AIUI the keyboard event synthesis is directly sent to the expected ui

Re: Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hi Samuel, Are you aware of ? Seems there is some overlap between dogtail and uitests. Regards, Miklos signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list

Extending subsequent tests with dogtail tests?

Hello, Libreoffice currently uses unit tests to check precise functions, and junit tests to check the behavior at the programmatic interface. For accessibility testing, we would like to introduce tests to check the behavior at the user interface itself, by using dogtail (developped by Fedora,