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 10:58:47 GMT
On 30.08.2012 10:43, Zhe Liu wrote:
> 2012/8/30 Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@gmail.com>:
>> 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.
> Right! The current main/test is not used for code unit test.  It 's
> used to test a real AOO instance.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> No problem for me to move test up. ooo/trunk/main/test -> ooo/trunk/test
> It's OK for me.  Except of  test module, there is a lot of other test
> legacy which should be moved up or removed from svn. e.g.
> testautomation, smoketestdoc, smoketestoo_native	, qadevOOo, {Some
> Modules}/qa, and testgraphical.
> It's a complex thing. I can volunteer for this.

Great.  Would it make sense to move everything test related that is 
currently in use to ooo/trunk/test/ and leave the old stuff in place 
where it can be deleted eventually?

-Andre


>
>>
>>
>> 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