Hi, I agree as well. Having a quicker way to check at least simple requirements would greatly improve the developer experience as well as the work of the testers at Harbour. I filed a request about this at together.jolla.com: https://together.jolla.com/question/13023/harbour-toolautomatism-for-quickly-checking-simple-compliance-requirements/
This is not intended as complaint but as a request to improve things. I think, having a quicker way to check compliance would not only benefit us developers but would also ease the work of the testers at Harbour as they would not need to complain about simple "standard" issues that often. Besides, I just got an app rejected again (after about two days) because I missed one path that was not according to the XDG requirements. Yeah, I know, I should have looked more thoroughly (I actually grepped through all my sources but somehow still managed to miss that one thing.) but in that case a tool that I could run or a pre-check that is run automatically after uploading an *.rpm to Harbour would have been great. Best regards, Ruediger On 01/10/2014 09:01 AM, Andreas Enbacka wrote: > I would like to agree with Franck on this. I have also partly held off > developing for SailfishOS due to e.g., the Harbour process, as well as > due to APIs my apps need to are not allowed. I think that in case Jolla > wants developers to focus on developing native apps for SailfishOS, many > improvments are needed in this area. > > Regards, > Andreas Enbacka > > On 10.1.2014 9:57, Franck Routier (perso) wrote: > Hi, > > currently, the Harbour QA process is quite frustrating, as problems > are reported one after the other, with a delay of several days > inbetween... reminds me of the old time cobol compilators! > > It would be cool if the efforts made by the developper to provide free > native application were a bit more considered. > > Ok, I'm talking out of frustration, but I had my app rejected first > because of naming conventions of the app itself (I didn't properly > read the FAQ, but it is not stated either in the app submission page > of Harbour), delay of 7 days, then because of rmp file naming > convention (which I did not find clearly stated except in the > rejection notification - 5 more days). Now I am waiting for next step > (2 days for now...) > > I understand this is a lot of work, but what I suggest is : > - more controls and more information in the app submission page > (testing the naming conventions of at least the files seems trivial) > - when doing QA, report all problems at once, not just the first one > - maybe provide a QA tool so that developpers could do this job and > let jolla teams concentrate on real QA (power consumption, security > checks, ...) > > Hope this does not sound too demanding... > > Best regards, > Franck >> _______________________________________________ >> SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list > > > _______________________________________________ > SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list -- http://ruedigergad.com _______________________________________________ SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
