harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Discussion: how to keep up stability and fast progress all together?
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:39:00 GMT
On 4/4/07, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
<SNIP>
> > > I'd like to propose the next approach that may help us to know about
> > > instabilities: develop (or take existing one, for example, Eclipse
> > > hello world) a scenario for testing stability and configure CC to run
> > > it at all times. The stability scenario must be the only one scenario
> > > for CC; it must be short (no longer then an hour), test JRE in stress
> > > conditions and cover most of functionality. If the scenario fails then
> > > all newly committed updates are subject for investigation and fix (or
> > > rollback).
> > Actually, I prefer something without GUI
> I do not think that remove GUI testing from CC and other stability
> testing is a good way to go. Because awt and swing modules are really
> big and complicated pieces of code.
>

Sorry for the confusion - I agree that we should continue running
AWT/Swing tests under CC. But we are talking about scenario that can
be used for testing stability in terms of race conditions. The first
scenario that spread in my mind was Eclipse hello world testing
scenario: it is quite short, verifies core functionality and so on.
But Vladimir claimed that there might be some issues related to GUI
testing and we may have a number of 'false alarms'.

BTW, do you have any scenario in mind that can be used a stability
criteria (of cause in terms of race conditions)?

Thanks,
Stepan.

> SY, Alexey
>
> > or at least without using
> > special 'GUI testing" tools. It should improve quality of this testing
> > (than less tools than more predictable results :)) Current "Eclipse
> > hello world" scenario based on the AutoIT for Win and X11GuiTest for
> > Linux platform. Also we have this scenario based on API calls which
> > should emulate GUI scenario. From these 2 approaches I prefer second
> > to minimize 'false alarms'. Or may be some other scenarios (non-GUI)?
> >
> >  Thanks, Vladimir
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thought? Objections?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stepan.
> > >
> > > > I read the discussion on naming, and M1, M2, ... is fine by me.  How
> > > > about we pick a proposed date for Apache Harmony M1?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tim
> > > >

-- 
Stepan Mishura
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

Mime
View raw message