Just for clarification... Testing 3.1.x works fine using 3.1 platforms, 3.1 mobilespec, and master plugins. Testing 'HEAD' works fine using master platforms, master mobilespec, and dev plugins.
Thats all as expected. Up until a week ago, you could test 3.0.x using 3.0.x platforms, 3.0.x mobilespec, and master plugins. That no longer works. On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aren't we testing 3.1.0 with the tests that were tagged in 3.1.0? > Testing with 3.0.0 tests seems like you'll always have failing tests, > since ideally the tests should have been added with the bug (although > I don't know where to put platform-specific mobile-spec tests, the > don't really have a home and people get upset when I check them in.) > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:34 AM, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: > > I believe that will be OK - testing it out now. > > > > It still probably deserves some documentation somewhere that the > previously > > stated relationships don't work anymore, and that any plugin references > in > > a 3.0.x project need attention. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > >> Would it fix it to use mobile-spec from master when testing 3.0.x? > >> Mobile-spec generally stays in sync with the plugins more so than the > >> platforms, so it would make sense to me to use mobile-spec at master if > >> using plugins from master/dev. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:40 PM, David Kemp <drk...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> > The issue is the that stated methodology for getting the right > versions > >> to > >> > test is: > >> > * for release, get plugins from the master branch and platforms, tests > >> etc > >> > from the release branch (3.0.x) > >> > * for tip of tree, get plugins from the dev branch and platforms, > tests > >> etc > >> > from the master branch > >> > Since the rename was done to the plugins on master (appropriate for > >> 3.1.x) > >> > that no longer leaves a place to get plugins that are 'compatible' > with > >> > 3.0.x > >> > > >> > The issue that I am pointing out right now is that the file: > >> > cordova-mobile-spec/dependencies-plugin/plugin.xml > >> > explicitly names the plugins with the old name in the 3.0.x branch of > >> > mobile-spec. so it breaks. > >> > > >> > If a developer has a similar references to their 3.0.x plugins, it > will > >> > also fail next time they build a fresh new project. > >> > > >> > For CI it means that all tests of the 3.0.x branch now fail. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Marcel Kinard <cmarc...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > In the past I've used #3. When checking out code to test, I try to > get > >> > all > >> > > the assets from the same branch / time period. But I may be skewed > in > >> > that > >> > > approach, since our product that embeds Cordova has a snapshot of > the > >> > > platforms and plugins, and doesn't get updates from the online > repos. > >> > > > >> > > Does what you are saying infer that the rename of the plugins is a > >> > > breaking change? And needs to have some verbage in the Upgrading > >> guides? > >> > > > >> > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, David Kemp <drk...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Summary: Due to the renaming of plugins, there is no longer a > >> sensible > >> > > way > >> > > > to test 3.0.x > >> > > > > >> > > > Detail: > >> > > > The process to test 3.0.x is to get platforms, mobile-spec, etc > from > >> > > 3.0.x > >> > > > and plugins from master. With the change on plugin names (remove > >> core) > >> > > the > >> > > > 3.0.x mobile-spec still refers to the names with core , but the > >> master > >> > > > branch of the plugins no longer have that name. > >> > > > > >> > > > Possible resolutions: > >> > > > 1) never mind - mobilespec for 3.0.x is broken, it will be fixed > in > >> > 3.1.x > >> > > > 2) cherrypick the change to mobilespec dependencies back to 3.0.x > >> > > > 3) find some other way to get the older plugins available to test. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > >> > > > David Kemp > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
