incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 27MB odt file in svn
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:51:22 GMT
On 30.08.2012 04:09, Shenfeng Liu wrote:
> +1 for test data and test script in a separated tree. Test documents should
> never be distributed together with product code. Only the sample documents
> in tutorials should.
> Another advantage for a separated QE tree is that a volunteer can download
> any AOO build and run the same test suite from the QE tree again and again,
> a easy way of regression and even automation.

Good idea, a third use case: use pre-built office and only the test/ 
source code.

> A complex situation maybe the UT by developer that calls internal
> functions. Sometimes developers like to write UT code together with the
> product code. But will a sample document be used in UT?

Even when we move the testing stuff one level higher to be on the same 
level as main/ and ext_libraries/ then an SVN checkout still puts it on 
your local disk.  The advantage of that move would be that

a) you can avoid checking out test/ and
b) it becomes easier to avoid including test/ in the source release.


Are there any volunteers for this move?  I would do it myself but I am 
on vacation for the next three weeks.

-Andre

>
> - Simon
>
>
> 2012/8/30 Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/29/2012 10:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> On 29.08.2012 16:02, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just saw that we have now two new binary files in the test/
module.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> main/test/testgui/data/svt/complex.ods has a size of 9 424 385
Bytes
>> and
>>>>>>> main/test/testgui/data/svt/complex.odt has a size of 27 175 936
>> Bytes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if SVN is really the best place for files that large.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also don't think that these files should be part of the source
>> release.
>>>>>>> But what else would have to be removed that depends on these
files?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something to keep in mind is that we'll probably end up with a large
>>>>>> number of test documents, 200+ MB.  Not all of them will be large.
>>>>>> But if we want to have good test coverage then we'll need test
>>>>>> documents to cover all areas, for ODF, MS Binaries and OOXML.  So
this
>>>>>> will grow, over time, to a large test set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This leads to four questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Should we be testing large/complex documents?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the answer is "yes".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Should such test documents be in SVN?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they should.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Should these documents be in the same source tree with the rest
of
>>>>>> the code that is downloaded by default for a build?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe not.  Unless they are needed for a smoke test that should be
run
>>>>>> by every developer.  But if not, maybe they should be stored in its
>>>>>> own tree, like ooo/test/trunk or something like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) Should these documents be included in the source distribution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably depends on the answer to question 3.  Maybe, maybe not.
 Or
>>>>>> maybe we have a separate source distribution artifact only for
>>>>>> test-related files?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My personal opinion is no.  I believe that the use case for
>> downloading and
>>>>> building the source release is different from the use case for cloning
>> the
>>>>> SVN repository.  I would expect the source release to be used for
>> building
>>>>> AOO, maybe do a simple test to verify that building was successful,
>> and then
>>>>> delete the source code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK.  That is a useful distinction:  building versus developing.
>>
>> I think Building versus QA - both are developing.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If I want to start developing then I would choose SVN.  Complex tests
>> would
>>>>> help me to avoid new errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the need for complex tests when my goal is not developing.
>> Lack
>>>>> of trust that we did not run the tests on the released code?
>>>>>
>>>>> But, of course I can be wrong (and often are :-).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we follow that logic, then we might still store the test data and
>>>> test code in SVN, but in its own tree, e.g., /ooo/test/trunk.
>>>>
>>>> This also preserves the option of us having a "test source" artifact
>>>> in a future release, if we wanted.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>
>>> +1, this seems like a good compromise
>>>
>>> I don' think the "test" cases should be in the same tree as source.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>> No use overloading developers who simply want to build and make
>> modifications.
>>
>> Source is required as an Open Source release. (we should all understand
>> that.)
>>
>> QA / test is "optional" but quite important. It should be separate and we
>> can include a "QA" package as one of our convenience binaries during a
>> release.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Andre
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Andre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
>>>     take it or leave it. "
>>>                                    -- Buddy Hackett
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message