incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zhe Liu <aliu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 27MB odt file in svn
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:33 GMT
Hi Andre,
Yes. Tomorrow I will move only main/test to trunk/test. I will remove
the useless test things step by step under the old place.

2012/8/30 Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@gmail.com>:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Best Regards
>From aliuzhe@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message