Hi, thanks, yeah, Kontio also commented on this and closed the request. I actually searched before posting but didn't find that one. Thanks again.
BR, Ruediger On 01/10/2014 09:45 AM, Reto Zingg wrote: > Hi, > > On 10.01.2014 10:36, Ruediger Gad wrote: >> 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/ >> > > That's a duplicate request... see current answer here: > > https://together.jolla.com/question/1593/integrate-qa-testing-scripts-with-sailfish-sdk/#post-id-8663 > > > br > Reto > > >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list -- http://ruedigergad.com _______________________________________________ SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
