cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <>
Subject Re: Can we talk about large features before they arrive in master?
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:08:33 GMT
In my opinion the last few "omfg shit's broken" emails comes mainly from
lack of testing. If a committer puts something into master, they need to
do "due diligence" for it, and that boils down to one question: do tests
pass on devices+platforms affected by the commit?

iOS this is easier (per se) than Android as there are less devices to
worry about. Android is a wild west. I suppose the "gimme feedback on this
feature" threads are a good opportunity to reach out to the rest of the
committers and ask for a sanity test across more devices (and should be
done at a minimum if you feel you don't have good device coverage on your

Here are some rules of thumb I follow:

- if I want to check something into cordova-js that is common across
platforms, I need to put in extra work to do the testing. That means I
grab a couple devices from a couple different platforms and make sure the
tests pass at a reasonable rate (at or around the previous passing % for
that platform). And sometimes issue come up that are not caught by the
cordova-js unit tests (esp. if they are run on node). Sometimes these
issues are platform/device-specific.
- if I'm checking something into platform code, I make sure to test
getting the sample app (or better yet mobile-spec) running using the
getting started instructions.
- for iOS, I usually run a smoke test on an iPod and since I got an
iPhone5 to test on, on that too.
- on Android I run tests on either a galaxy nexus or nexus 7 (both run
4.2.1) and a nexus S (2.3.6).

That said, there are certainly some issues uncovered. As you brought up
Andrew, I cannot find a "hey lets tag next week" email to the list for
2.4.0rc1 either. I think the Adobe team was well aware internally that we
wanted to cut a release now-ish. But, clearly, we failed to communicate
that on the list. Definitely won't happen again and that's our bad.

As long as everyone runs tests accordingly, this isn't a huge issue. It is
on its way to being resolved and we'll release the rc1 of 2.4.0 in the
coming days.

On 1/21/13 1:24 PM, "Joe Bowser" <> wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Grieve <>
>> One tough thing about this is knowing when you have agreement or not.
>> for adding File.slice(), Braden sent out an email on the 7th saying that
>> he'd like to add it for iOS & Android. Simon gave it a +1, and no one
>> responded. He then implemented the feature in a feature branch and then
>> merged it when it was working. Since there was an email with few
>>replies, I
>> gathered that it had been discussed, and that no one really had
>>anything to
>> say about it.
>> Joe - How do you propose that we make sure that things work? Or are you
>> suggesting that a code-review serves this purpose?
>I do think a code review serves this purpose.  I need to see a
>published branch somewhere that I can test to make sure that things
>don't break on my end before I can say "Hey, this looks good!", and
>I'd prefer if mobile-spec was updated as part of the feature so I
>don't have to figure out what's being done myself.
>> As for code reviews:
>> I'd certainly be interested in more code-reviews. I think it's really
>> useful to get feedback on changes. The only time when it becomes a
>> is when turn-around time gets too long (e.g. you submit for review and
>> one looks at it for over a day).
>> Up until now, we've been using the github pull-request interface to have
>> others review our changes, but this isn't done very frequently. I also
>> don't love this approach because comments through it don't get posted
>> to the cordova mailing-list.
>I'm not super thrilled by this either, because our GitHub pull request
>system is completely broken since we can't actually close requests and
>indicate when we think things are a good idea or not. I think we
>should do what Android does with Gerrit (see
> , but that'll involve
>additional infrastructure and another war with INFRA about whether
>it's the Apache way or whatever.
>> Another example is just using feature branches:
>> Last week I tried out the branch approach for the CB-2227. I sent an
>> saying what I wanted to do, created a branch, and sent my first "I've
>> progress" out on Wednesday. On Thursday, I responded to the thread
>> that the initial work was done and asked for feedback. I got no
>> so today I merged into Master and updated the bug. I did this because I
>> feel pretty confident about the change, but also because it will force
>> everyone to test it out, and we're still early in the current
>I think this is fine and is exactly what needs to happen. It didn't
>seem to break anything ,and there was a branch that we could look at.
>The thing is that I don't remember seeing a branch for ArrayBuffer
>that we could look at.  I'll dig through my e-mail to find it, but I
>don't remember seeing it.
>> Maybe there's a problem with people not noticing when feedback is being
>> requested? Should we have a more structured way of asking for feedback
>>on a
>> branch? E.g. Start a new thread on the ML with the subject "Review
>> ..." or something like that? And if you're proposing a new API, say "API
>> Review: ...". WDYT?
>I think that having a proper header on the e-mail would be a good plan.

View raw message