On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29.08.2012 16:02, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just saw that we have now two new binary files in the test/ module. >>> >>> main/test/testgui/data/svt/complex.ods has a size of 9 424 385 Bytes and >>> main/test/testgui/data/svt/complex.odt has a size of 27 175 936 Bytes. >>> >>> I wonder if SVN is really the best place for files that large. >>> >>> I also don't think that these files should be part of the source release. >>> But what else would have to be removed that depends on these files? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >> >> Something to keep in mind is that we'll probably end up with a large >> number of test documents, 200+ MB. Not all of them will be large. >> But if we want to have good test coverage then we'll need test >> documents to cover all areas, for ODF, MS Binaries and OOXML. So this >> will grow, over time, to a large test set. >> >> This leads to four questions: >> >> 1) Should we be testing large/complex documents? >> >> I think the answer is "yes". > > > Agreed. > > >> >> 2) Should such test documents be in SVN? >> >> I think they should. > > > Agreed. > > >> >> 3) Should these documents be in the same source tree with the rest of >> the code that is downloaded by default for a build? >> >> Maybe not. Unless they are needed for a smoke test that should be run >> by every developer. But if not, maybe they should be stored in its >> own tree, like ooo/test/trunk or something like that. >> >> 4) Should these documents be included in the source distribution? >> >> Probably depends on the answer to question 3. Maybe, maybe not. Or >> maybe we have a separate source distribution artifact only for >> test-related files? > > > > My personal opinion is no. I believe that the use case for downloading and > building the source release is different from the use case for cloning the > SVN repository. I would expect the source release to be used for building > AOO, maybe do a simple test to verify that building was successful, and then > delete the source code. >
OK. That is a useful distinction: building versus developing. > If I want to start developing then I would choose SVN. Complex tests would > help me to avoid new errors. > > I don't see the need for complex tests when my goal is not developing. Lack > of trust that we did not run the tests on the released code? > > But, of course I can be wrong (and often are :-). > If we follow that logic, then we might still store the test data and test code in SVN, but in its own tree, e.g., /ooo/test/trunk. This also preserves the option of us having a "test source" artifact in a future release, if we wanted. -Rob > -Andre > >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> Regards, >>> Andre > >
