On 9/25/07, Ralph Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/25/07, Matthias Berth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wonder if I / others could help by running automated tests of > > different configurations, different subsets of loaded packages etc? It > > could look like this: > > We don't need more compute cycles for running tests, we need more > debugging cycles for fixing broken tests. In other words, if there is > a configuration that is ready to be tested, I can add it to my script > and have it run along with all the others. It took less than half an > hour on my machine to run the five configurations on the list. If > there were a hundred configurations, I could still run the tests every > night.
OK, I see the point. > One way that people can help with testing is to find packages in PU > that are ready for testing. First, make sure you can run all the > regular tests without crashing the system. You might need to get rid > of FontTest, because of the outstanding font bugs. Then, try loading > a package and use TestRunner to run *all* the tests. If it gives > results without popping up any windows (except for the one that asks > for your initials the first time you change code) then it is ready to > be tested. http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5987 names Seaside as one package that is not yet ready for testing because it asks you for a user name. One could load Seaside via Installer, http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/742, giving user name etc in the script, as in: repo := Installer squeaksource project: 'Seaside'. repo answer: '*config*' with: 'seaside'; answer: '*password*' with: 'admin'; install: 'Seaside2.8a1' Would that be acceptable as a short term solution for getting packages into the universe? Cheers Matthias _______________________________________________ V3dot10 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10
