Thorsten Behrens wrote: > May I suggest a moratorium on enforcing this (at least for > community) CWS then, until this is finished? I think Helge's blog posting is kind of a "abridged edition".
The change he is talking about is not related to bugs that break the tests - in that case you had to fix that also until now (or someone else if the bug was in the test script). At the end that was the meaning of the tests: if they find a bug it must be fixed. :-) So nothing has changed in case of bugs found during testing. That's different for intentional changes of a particular behavior or feature in OOo that will make a test fail because this test was made to ensure the old behavior or relied on it. In this case currently the QA just could disable the test and wait until a fix was provided and could be applied. This could last for quite some time. The reason was that the test scripts have not been committed to the same cvs and so couldn't be kept in sync with the code. As usually tests need to be run on older and newer milestones in parallel, the QA had to decide whether they adapt the test to the new behavior but then couldn't run it on older milestones or code lines anymore or they don't adapt it and then couldn't run it on newer milestones. *This* now has changed as the test scripts now are in the same svn repository as the OOo code. > And why can't I simply > use the testtool from my build, instead of downloading a prebuilt > binary? Maybe I broke the testtool itself with my vcl changes, > shouldn't my CWS be tested as one atomic entity? That sounds like a reasonable request to me. I asked for that by myself also some time ago. > And finally, I will just happily adhere to all of this & shut my > mouth, if only this would be integrated into the build - why not > have another module besides smoketest_native, say autotests_native, > that builds all of OOo, installs it like smoketest does, and runs > the testtool with the required tests on it? Then running tests on > tinderboxen would be a breeze... ;) While I agree with you that starting tests from the command line, executing a test tool that was built in the same work space would be a very welcomed addition, I don't see this as a critical requirement. So all in all nearly nothing has changed for developers. You can proceed as usual, but must be prepared that in case of a breakage in the automated tests the QA engineer that found it will require a fix before the CWS can get approved. If the change must be done in the script, it does not need to be you to fix it, maybe the QA engineer will do it himself or ask someone else. Again, that was true for bugs anyway, now we have the additional requirement that test scripts must been adapted to intentional changes of the source code in the same CWS where the changes have been applied. You can either get in touch with one the QA engineers Helge has listed to clarify that before in case you suspect to run into that situation or you can wait until someone detects a problem. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
