Hi Vito, Vito Smolej wrote:
"Have a look in the directory ../writer/tools..." - lieber Helge, you can be sure I did that (can provide the res file as a proof;) before I called in here..
I meant that as a hint and not as an assumption you did not :-)
The script is no big help - it just lists the localized expressions which I should know by heart by now - after all it was me (with a few other dogs), who dug these bones into the code. What the script does not do, however, is create a (say) w_locale_strings_50.txt, that would be used by all those 36 cases, where the code branches into different locales. That is, a file like some older parts of the testtool system use...
You should consider that a writer of the code not always understands the language he has to test. For the reason I do not understand all languages, I wrote this test to make it easier for me maintaining supported languages. Your proposal is valid indeed but it is also a lot of work to change that....on the other side my experience in writing automated tests since some years tells me that the current code is easier to maintain than having a bunch of txt-files included in the code. Just my experience in handling/debugging and validation of testscripts/testresults.
I am ready to help - no doubt - however I would probably be a nuisance if I tried to dig into the code. Ill probably skip the writer tests altogether - theres so much there that reminds me of tests in the framework.Regards and please this is no critique, its just plain common sense - my way. Ill probably bring up the subject on one of the IRC meetings.
Don't get me wrong but all new code needs some time to understand......and....if you ask some other automation team members I'm sure they tell you 'writer code is the easiest code' (as I said in handling/debugging/maintaining) we have !
-- Regards Helge --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
