Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LO 3.5.0.rc3 : deployment, gpo, msi, vc2008, etc.
Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote (08-02-12 06:27) Thank you for investigate that problem. Bug report is here : https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45750 I would say that it is great that this bug surfaces now! Because I would not expect, nor advise, that a dot-0 version will be deployed via Group Policy on larger scale in enterprises. Therefore so much the better that they discovered it :-) -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LO 3.5.0.rc3 : deployment, gpo, msi, vc2008, etc.
Le 07/02/2012 08:03, Andras Timar a écrit : > Hi, > > 2012/2/7 Jean-Baptiste Faure : >> Hi all, >> >> In the FR community, several users said that it is impossible to deploy >> LO 3.5.0 rc[1|2|3] under MS-Windows-7 using GPO. >> >> Did some of you try to do that ? >> It seems that there is a problem with the fact that the redistributable >> vc2008 is included in the msi. >> > > I guess we really need your input about this issue, e.g. a detailed > bugreport. I'll investigate. Hi Andras, Thank you for investigate that problem. Bug report is here : https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45750 Best regards. JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Issues with 3.5.0 - ready for release ...
Hey, 2012/2/7 Caolán McNamara : > On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 20:32 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: >> Do we >> have tests doing automated QA (conversions) to test export filters and are >> we using fuzzing techniques to test our import filters ? > > I've personally been to-date more interested in automated import filter > tests, typically various binary file formats. You can find the existing > tests in e.g. sw/qa/core/filters-test.cxx where the minimal > always-tested test-cases are in e.g. sw/qa/core/data/*/ > > The idea of these is that you use something like > bin/get-bugzilla-attachments-by-mimetype to slurp down a pile of extra > documents and shove them into sw/qa/core/data/*/indeterminate and just > run "make" in sw to see if any of them triggers a crash (or a valgrind > warning when export VALGRIND=memcheck make is used). > > Same basic "see if file format parser crashes" idea implemented for > other modules spread around the place, e.g. sc, sd, svtools and stuff > like .xls, .ppt .wmf and so forth. With some modifications this will also work for odt. Odt is just a special case because our internal code distinguishs odt and all other filters and will fail if we don't provide all necessary information for odt ( see sc/qa/unit/filters-test.cxx for the needed adjustments ). The more difficult part is then to find all necessary component files and add them otherwise around 80% of the complex documents will crash. I can port the sc adjustments to sw but someone else would need to add the component files. > > calc has extended things a bit further for some extra tests to ensure > that selected test documents have the expected calculation results and > Markus demoed at FOSDEM the in-progress stuff for sd to ensure that > selected test documents render as expected. We also used Caolan's great script and concept to test all ods, xls and xlsx files from OOo, fdo and redhat bugzilla for crashs. Testing these files can only search for crashs not that documents are imported because only around 60 to 70% of them can be imported at all. A lot of them are either totally broken or contain passwords. I added a bit of code to sc's filters-tesst and planned to improve that code for the next release but if you plan to use this concept for writer or impress I can integrate the remaining points from todo list. But keep in mind that this is nothing that will be fast. I needed around one week to check a bit more than 4000 files. Anyway it would be great if you could help out doing the same for writer. This would mainly involve finding the component files and running the test, I would port all my changes to sw if needed. Regards, Markus ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Issues with 3.5.0 - ready for release ...
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 20:32 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > Do we > have tests doing automated QA (conversions) to test export filters and are > we using fuzzing techniques to test our import filters ? I've personally been to-date more interested in automated import filter tests, typically various binary file formats. You can find the existing tests in e.g. sw/qa/core/filters-test.cxx where the minimal always-tested test-cases are in e.g. sw/qa/core/data/*/ The idea of these is that you use something like bin/get-bugzilla-attachments-by-mimetype to slurp down a pile of extra documents and shove them into sw/qa/core/data/*/indeterminate and just run "make" in sw to see if any of them triggers a crash (or a valgrind warning when export VALGRIND=memcheck make is used). Same basic "see if file format parser crashes" idea implemented for other modules spread around the place, e.g. sc, sd, svtools and stuff like .xls, .ppt .wmf and so forth. calc has extended things a bit further for some extra tests to ensure that selected test documents have the expected calculation results and Markus demoed at FOSDEM the in-progress stuff for sd to ensure that selected test documents render as expected. > The conversion problems have not been reported yet, but I am sure if we > throw more example documents (maybe from Google ?) at it we'll find a lot > more problems in an automated fashion. Sounds good, might need to poke existing code a bit to add extra file formats if following the existing approach. I can help out what that if any help is needed there. C. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Issues with 3.5.0 - ready for release ...
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Cor Nouws wrote: But the quick look I had at the rough list in the train this morning, showed crashes and such but as far as I could judge with special documents. Great issues to solve for the next release(s) ... I can demonstrate issues with some filters during conversions, and when generating (incorrect) Flat ODF have had crashes too (reported). Do we have tests doing automated QA (conversions) to test export filters and are we using fuzzing techniques to test our import filters ? The conversion problems have not been reported yet, but I am sure if we throw more example documents (maybe from Google ?) at it we'll find a lot more problems in an automated fashion. I remember at the LibreConference that Gabriel Monnerat of cloudooo fame was reporting the same problems and reported 10% conversion errors (LibO crashes and filter errors) on a set of 100.000 internet documents. Gabriel implemented various techniques to make his setup more resillient (killing run-away and memory-leaked instances, restarting on crashes and filter instabilities) bringing this number down to 1.1%. Which proves that the majority of these issues are not necessarily reproducable. I am interested in this, both because it helps making unoconv a better tool, but also because it will learn me how to report such issues and who to address them to. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Issues with 3.5.0 - ready for release ...
Hi Petr, Petr Mladek wrote (07-02-12 11:01) So, though the overall impression is OK (as is with builds from the master) as long that checking issues from the last weeks is not clear, I would not bet on it. I have the same feeling. (I read your text below as the opposite ;-) ) Well, we have had lack of bug-triage people since the beginning and we were newer able to review all bug reports in time. I am afraid that there is no short-time solution, so we need to live with what we have now and believe that the most critical bugs were correctly propagated. I can live with that believe. Apart from the problems mentioned by the French community (pity they seem to be from RC1 already. We simple QA people cannot catch up with your speed :-) ) But the quick look I had at the rough list in the train this morning, showed crashes and such but as far as I could judge with special documents. Great issues to solve for the next release(s) ... Thanks a lot for your work and nice summary. Was fun to track/check the bugs and post my impression. Thanks you appreciate it :-) Cheers, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Help with parallel install
Hi Petr, all Petr Mladek wrote > > Could you please report this into bugzilla. Also please add Andras into > CC, who reworked the Windows installer for 3.5 and will probably solve > the bug. > I have already reported https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45306 The Status remains NEEDINFO but according to Andras this is NOTABUG, so it can be closed. I don't have the time now to test with RC3 (and I couldn't test that particular situation any longer). I'm sorry. Real Life TM doesn't allow me any time :( Regards, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Help-with-parallel-install-tp3687803p3722266.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Help with parallel install
Pedro píše v St 25. 01. 2012 v 06:16 -0800: > Hi guys > > I'm trying to do a parallel install of LO 3.5.0RC2 and after unpacking > (using msiexec /a) to some folder in Drive D: (\Programas\LibO350RC2) I > can't save the edits to file Bootstrap.ini. > I get "Error saving... Access is denied." > > I had the same problem with RC1 but didn't have the time to report. > > The only solution I found is the reboot the PC, enter in Safe Mode, take > ownership of the folder and then it is fixed... But this is definitely not > user friendly ;) > > Has this happened to any of you? Could you please report this into bugzilla. Also please add Andras into CC, who reworked the Windows installer for 3.5 and will probably solve the bug. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Minutes - QA related - TSC call 2012-01-26
Hi, first, I am sorry with the late reply. I am a bit late in reading mails. Pedro píše v So 28. 01. 2012 v 08:30 -0800: > More intensive testing is not the problem. Your TSC summary shows there are > still 80 regressions. At a rate of 1 fix per day that would take over 2.5 > months. I agree that regressions are bad and might discourage some users. On the other hand If am not sure about the priorities. Some regressions are are in rarely used functionality. Bugs in more widely used/visible functionality might have higher priority. > The problem is that there is a new release each month (sometimes 2 releases > in the same month) > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan > > It is reasonable to expect that these new builds will have more features > (especially the 3.6.x) so new bugs and new regressions will be added... We have a release with new features only every 6 months. The many builds are pure bugfix releases. We allow only safe fixes for the bug-fix releases. All fixes are reviewed by second person. We ask QA for extra testing if a more risky fix needs to go into the bugfix release. So, the full QA should be needed only during the beta and rc phase for the .0 release. Minimal testing should be needed for the bug fix releases. Of course, we had some regressions even in bug fix releases but I do not remember anything super critical. IMHO, the stability of every 3.X release was improving with every bug fix release. > And since for each pre-release period, which happens monthly, the priority > are the blockers, regressions will tend to accumulate and overall quality to > decrease as mentioned by Nino on this topic (I agree with him) > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-preparing-QA-talk-for-FOSDEM-tp3691881p3691881.html I think that it is not easy to compare. LO-3.3.0 release was based on OOo-3.3.1. The code base already absolved several months of bugfixing. You would need to compare 3.4.3 or 3.4.4 with it. LO-3.4 was our first real release with features, refactoring, and other big changes. It was not ideal because we merged many features too close before feature branch. The first betas were not much usable. Anyway, we fixed many things in the bug fix releases and we are still going to fix many annoying bugs in 3.4.6. LO-3.5 is our second real release. We have added features regularly during the past months. They were tested using daily builds... I think that the overal feeling about 3.5.0 is much better than it was with 3.4.0. Note that we might have more bugs reported, more regressions detected. Though, it might be also because we have more users that report bugs, more people doing bug triage and correctly marking regressions. So, it is possible we have even less number of bugs but we know about them in time (in compare with 3.4). Note that .0 release will always have annoying bugs if we stay with the time based release. We just need to teach users and set the right expectation. The important thing is the comparison between the different .0 releases, and different .1 bug fix releases. Note that you would need to compare 3.3.0 with 3.4.3, 3.3.1 with 3.4.4, ... because of the history of the 3.3 release. I have the feeling that 3.5.0 is better than 3.4.0, so the trend might be positive. I agree that the situation is not ideal. We need more people doing QA, triaging bugs, ... I think that we still need to improve the wiki pages that might help volunteers to start. We need to propagate the existing ones, ... Also many QA processes might need optimization and improvement. It might help if we decide on what functionality is core, what is important and what is less important. Also I wonder what approach you use when triaging bugs, if you take them by subject, or initial severity, or creation date, ... IMHO, we need to teach users to set the initial severity reasonable, so it helps to prioritize even the triage. Another thing is how much time we need to spend with reproducing the bugs. The information is sometimes very useful. On the other hand, it is very time consuming. We might want to use NEEDINFO flag more often. Well, I am not sure where now is the best time to communicate this. It might be long discussion and it might be better to do it later when 3.5 is out and in a reasonable state. In each case, I have a good feeling about the current trend. Thanks a lot for your contribution. You do a lot of work and it is much appreciated. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Issues with 3.5.0 - ready for release ...
Cor Nouws píše v Út 07. 02. 2012 v 01:08 +0100: > Hi, > > As promised to Thorsten on Sunday, I've been looking at 3.5.0 and issues. > > I looked at issues that I've seen, that are at 37361 and at the 44 > issues filed during our second BugHuntSession (little delay :-\ ) > > Added some comments, added some to bug 37361 etc. Great work. I hope that we will fix most of them soon. > So... as for 3.5.0rc3: > In the issues I know, I do not see issues that should be blocker > (maybe Bug 45584 - presentation view defective, but I know others looked > at that one.) We have workaround for bug 45584. I have mentioned it at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.5#Most_annoying_bugs. So, it need not block the release. > However, I have no idea if the issues from the last weeks have been > spotted / judged consequently and with enough detail (looking at what > happened with the issues from January 21 and 22, I have to doubt > seriously alas.) > So, though the overall impression is OK (as is with builds from the > master) as long that checking issues from the last weeks is not clear, I > would not bet on it. I have the same feeling. Well, we have had lack of bug-triage people since the beginning and we were newer able to review all bug reports in time. I am afraid that there is no short-time solution, so we need to live with what we have now and believe that the most critical bugs were correctly propagated. Thanks a lot for your work and nice summary. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
