On 8 January 2015 at 17:15, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> -- replying below to -- > From: jan i [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 03:11 > To: [email protected]; Dennis Hamilton > Subject: Re: Coding Standards page > > On 8 January 2015 at 00:40, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> > wrote: > [ ... ] > > It is OK to have binaries for test. Can you please add the right git > > attributes to the main test dir. > > > > <orcmid> > > I don't see a main test dir anywhere. > > If you know of specific file extensions for binary content that we > have, > > please update the .gitattributes file at the repository root. I > > couldn't > > Find anything with a quick scan of the repository. > > (The SVN definitions are different and we don't use our SVN that way.) > > </orcmid> > > > <orcmid> > When I went looking for a test directory, I found Peter's test > documents. > As well as I could determine, they are all .html files, so there is > nothing to do. > > Looking at the poi files, I see that there are many in binary formats. > I could simply add those to the list of binaries in .gitattributes. > It would be better to have some sort of files to confirm that the > .gitattributes is working, like a specimen of each file extension. > > I can make the .gitattributes changes. It will need to be reviewed > </orcmid> > > > > > My bad, I have one in my branch but it is not in the repo....I think went > away because peter moved test cases into docFormats, since they were all > white box testing. > > We need a test dir at top level for black box tests, please create one. May > I suggest we add the poi test documents in a subdir, with a readme file > that informs the origin. > > Dave@ thanks for your idea, and for sharing your concern...I think it is > better to have them in our git repo, so developers dont need multiple > version control clients. > <orcmid> > I am not taking an action on creation of a test directory. There is > Need for more conversation on organization and whether to fork or to > fetch, etc., to be considered. Also, there is no discussion yet > of how tests themselves are conducted using whatever test documents > there are. > </orcmid> > I would have assumed that collecting test documents can never be bad. I am not sure I can follow you with "to fork or to fetch". I believe we need to documents in our test repo, so that developers have no excuse for not running the tests. If I see dftest (and/or dfutil) you can setup testcases, that reads the .docx document, generates html, and checks it. The discussion is in itself important, I agree to that. rgds jan i > > rgds > jan i > > > [ ... ] > > > > > >
