On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, mdipierro wrote: > > I think this is a good idea.
Me too. I rather expect, though, that it will be necessary, and perhaps desirable regardless, for this to be a suite of applications rather than a single app. > > 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
