I think this is a good idea.
On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Martín Mulone <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to start an w2p-app, called app by an example or testing app. The > idea is to have in one app some code for testing pourpose, that make for > example insert,select,delete like the code in the bottom of sql.py. What do > you think?. > > 2010/10/30 rochacbruno <[email protected]> > > > > > At my company we started to use this > > >http://www.reviewboard.org/ > > > Integrated with hg > > > I suggest to start using this integrated with the main web2py repository. > > > Enviado via iPhone > > > Em 30/10/2010, às 21:33, mart <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > > BTW - have you seen Mondrian? - is built on Perforce. > > > >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8502904076440714866# > > > > Mart > > > > On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, mart <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hey, > > > >> Would it make sense not to pull the apps that get built against #head > > >> revision (unless the goal is to test the apps themselves) and > > >> preferably just pull the code line it self @ #head revision? (follow > > >> up on this in next paragraph) And also, I don't know where things > > >> stand wrt bug tracking, but an important consideration are the bug > > >> fixes ("does this build contain the fix for Bug X?"). Typically when > > >> bugs get resolved/closed, they get verified on a clean slate, then > > >> once validated & blessed (or rejected), the fix can be made public. > > > >> I think the process is pretty close to what Thadeus mentioned, but > > >> would add the integration to bug tracking (this data is usually made > > >> part of the release notes specifically instead of a description typed > > >> in @ commit time). if the desire is automation (smoke tests) that I > > >> would store the raw data of the "generic app" in some dedicated > > >> tables, then re-populate the all-encompassing app with current data. > > >> By always grabbing latest_row, you keep the previous data for the > > >> previous build/release intact and in the correct place (so you don't > > >> need to change the test process from release to release, and you have > > >> the the build process insert a new set of records @ build time > > >> referencing the current build. With this, you also have > > >> reproducibility if needed. > > > >> Last point, and I know I am persistently annoying with this, but > > >> mercurial, IMHO, sucks, sucks a lot. Personally I would use nothing > > >> less then the best out there, Perforce, specially if considering > > >> automated testing (again IMHO, but at least a fairly well supported > > >> statement :)). web2py is Open source, Perforce does give additional > > >> user licenses to open source projects (I'm sure Massimo would only > > >> need to make the request (which is online @ perforce .com btw). I > > >> mention that here because, good testing processes should be well > > >> integrated to source control. and for the web2py user, offering time > > >> for testing, a local instance of the perforce server can be installed, > > >> absolutely free of charge (with a max of 2 user licenses per server - > > >> more than enough for "remote workers" who can very easily keep in sync > > >> with the "main web2py" server (I work from home (Quebec, Canada), work > > >> for an American based company (HQ in Sunnyvale) - and that is how I do > > >> my work, with my local p4D. works like a charm). Anyways, enough of > > >> that, just thought I'd find another reason to slide that in ;) > > > >> regards, > > >> Mart :) > > > >> On Oct 30, 2:58 pm, Luther Goh Lu Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> It is reasonable to suggest a universal test app that will assist in > > >>> the quality assurance of web2py. But I wonder if this will always have > > >>> 100% test coverage, given that bugs may appear even when writing test > > >>> cases. This is still a good idea compared to not having a test suite. > > > >>> However, I think I would have a greater sense of security if I am able > > >>> to test the apps I have written against the nightly/trunk build. > > > >>> On Oct 31, 1:46 am, Thadeus Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> Where should the list of apps come from? I think this is the biggest > > >>>> question. > > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Thadeus > > > >>>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Thadeus Burgess < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >>>>> Someone writes a script to automate the process. Have a list of apps > > that > > >>>>> we want to be sure are tested and working. The script will download > > web2py > > >>>>> testing, copy the apps to the downloaded version, fire a process fork > > to > > >>>>> start that web2py, use urllib or httplib to navigate to each of the > > apps > > >>>>> pages to verify that things are working. If a response code of 500 is > > ever > > >>>>> received then go get the error ticket and store it somewhere central > > >>>>> including which app it came from. > > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Thadeus > > > >>>>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Luther Goh Lu Feng < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >>>>>> On Oct 30, 7:05 am, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Normally it goes to the nightly build, perhaps not exactly the > > latest > > >>>>>>> but something very close. The bug in question has been there for > > about > > >>>>>>> one week. The problem is that nobody tests the nightly build. > > > >>>>>>> Massimo > > > >>>>>> I would love to have a way to test non stable builds easily with my > > >>>>>> existing apps. How does one do so besides downloading the trunk/ > > >>>>>> nightly build, and then exporting the apps from stable web2py and > > then > > >>>>>> import to the trunk/nightly web2py? > > -- > My blog:http://martin.tecnodoc.com.ar > My portfolio *spanish*:http://www.tecnodoc.com.ar > Checkout my last proyect instant-press:http://www.instant2press.com
