The VCLAuto code had copy from symphony to the trunk and re-factory as design[1]. Also the license for these files had updated to ASF 2.0. Thanks Liu Zhe's great work, everyone can enjoy the new automation GUI test framework now !
[1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Test_Refactor 2012/6/25 De Bin Lei <debin....@gmail.com> > > > 2012/6/25 Zhe Liu <aliu...@gmail.com> > >> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <a...@a-w-f.de>: >> > On 25.06.2012 10:46, Zhe Liu wrote: >> >> >> >> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <a...@a-w-f.de>: >> >>> >> >>> On 25.06.2012 10:00, Zhe Liu wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 2012/6/25 Andre Fischer <a...@a-w-f.de>: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Zhe Liu, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> we already have four test related modules under main/ (test, >> >>>>> testautomation, >> >>>>> testgraphical, testtools). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Would one of these be a good place to add two sub-directories for >> the >> >>>>> new >> >>>>> testing code? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Are you concerned about too many modules? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Yes. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The new 2 modules are top level modules. qadevoo and testoo depend >> >>>> on testcommon. >> >>>> qadevoo->testcommon >> >>>> testoo -> testcommon >> >>>> If >> >>>> qadevoo->test/testcommon >> >>>> test/testoo ->test/testcommon >> >>>> I don't know if it works according to the current build system. In >> >>>> addition, I don't want to overwrite the existing code. They are >> >>>> totally different. The 4 modules is maintained by nobody and can be >> >>>> removed in future, I said it in >> >>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Test_Refactor >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I see. The goal is to remove the modules test, testautomation, >> >>> testgraphical, testtools? Then it is OK to ignore them for now. >> >>> >> >>> But then my question is: why not one new module and place testcommon >> and >> >>> testoo as subdirectories into it? >> >> >> >> Do you mean the code structure like the following? >> >> test/testcommon >> >> test/testoo >> >> Jürgen suggested the same code layout. Actually I also prefer to it. I >> >> have one question. test/testoo depends on "test/testcommon". >> >> cd test/testoo >> >> build >> >> Is testcommon built automatically? If yes, it's ok. >> > >> > >> > We have main/test/prj/build.lst for that. There is one line for each >> > directory that is to be build, together with dependencies on other >> modules >> > (in the first line) and on other directories in the same module (on each >> > line after the '-') >> > >> > You would probably add two lines similar to these: >> > >> > te test\source\testcommon nmake - all te_testcommon NULL >> > te test\source\testoo nmake - all te_testoo te_testcommon NULL >> > >> > Which state that te_testoo depends on te_testcommon. >> > Then build the module with >> > >> > cd main/test >> > build >> > >> > (please note that you build in main/test/, not in main/test/testoo or >> > main/test/testcommon) >> > >> > -Andre >> > >> > >> OK. I accept. Thanks for your advice, Andre. >> De Bin, what's your opinion? >> > Both are ok for me. > >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Besides, has the naming scheme (test{common/oo}) anything to do with >> the >> >>> now >> >>> obsolete distinction between oo and so (the Sun only code parts)? >> >> >> >> No! Do you have better name? >> >> >> >>> >> >>> -Andre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards >> From aliu...@gmail.com >> > > > > -- > Best regards > Lei De Bin > > -- Best regards Lei De Bin
