I guess we need to improve+enlarge our automated tests and rely on it in the future. Right now it is necessary to run manual tests :( I'll try to write 1-2 tests per day/week (too much work right now :(( )
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:52 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wicket will help to do tests. However our client is 100% Flash now. > > Do we want to run UI tests in the Flash UI or do we want to only run JUnit > tests automated ? > > How can we define which JUnit tests run automated ? > > From my perspective the more we can test automated the less time you spend > on even more painful tasks. > Cause every test that is _not_ automated means that: > - It is likely that nobody will do testing > - A extremly painful process will start where we maintain a wiki document > that lists all tests (with all problems including, like nobody takes care > of those documents, nobody can really control if those tests have been > performed at all or not, et cetera) > > So from my perspective putting some time into an automated test is still > much less pain then trying now to re-run all those manual tests, mail ping > pong and discussion with every release that we do. > > Sebastian > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > It is hard for me to answer such long letters :))) > > > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo > > I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self > > registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no "Call > to > > test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release, please > > stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me > know.... > > > > I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the build > > (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue). > > > > since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our UI > > similar to their tests (never tried that) > > I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :) > > > > according to our (and Apache guide) > > http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html > > " > > > > *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source > > code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable > on > > their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the > > requirements of the ASF policy on releases.* > > > > " > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < > > seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya) > > > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the > > > community to help us testing. > > > > > > *1) there were no issues reported by users* > > > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I > > also > > > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited > to > > > test. > > > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 > months* > > > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete => > > > release". That model will not work for our future. > > > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that. > > > > > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / > click > > > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current > > > project. > > > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup > import > > > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that > > > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now. > > > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what > test > > > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits > > missing > > > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what > > > keeps us away from doing that? > > > > > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the > > > tests are just outdated. > > > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run > > > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, > just > > > zero tests run automated. > > > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test > a > > > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests. > > > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody > > else > > > involved has done for 2.1 > > > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ... > > > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 > needs > > > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that > in > > > any sense. Every release does need a full test. > > > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of > > > committers. > > > > > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve > > > that in the future? > > > > > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the > > > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ? > > > > > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add > > > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a > "feature" > > > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective. > > > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of > > manual > > > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?! > > > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and > > clicking > > > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?! > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, > Yuliya) > > > > additional causes are: > > > > 1) there were no issues reported by users > > > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 > months > > > > > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should > have > > > 2-3 > > > > month > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < > > > > seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed > on > > > > > already happen? > > > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC? > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings > > > 2.1.0 > > > > > RC3 > > > > > > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel > > > > > > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Changelog: > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG > > > > > > > > > > > > Release artefacts: > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/ > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E): > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS > > > > > > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > > > > > > > My vote is +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > WBR > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sebastian Wagner > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > > > > seba.wag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > WBR > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sebastian Wagner > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > > http://www.webbase-design.de > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > > seba.wag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WBR > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > seba.wag...@gmail.com > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
