incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shenfeng Liu <liush...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 27MB odt file in svn
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:09:09 GMT
+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.
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?

- 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message