On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team within KDE in order to better
> test our next KDE SC and make the beta process more efficient.
> Attached is the first draft of the ideas I brainstormed. Source .odt of this
> document
On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
wrote:
Hi,
We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team within KDE in order to better
test our next KDE SC and make the beta process more efficient.
Attached is the first draft of the ideas I brainsto
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team within KDE in order to
>>> better
>>> test our next KDE SC and
Hi Anne, hi all
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
>This is addressed for 4.9 as "putting in place a few
>selected areas of functional testing" and hopefully
>we will assess some automated UI testing tools
>and start using them in the following releases.
>I hope we can gather enou
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team within KDE in order to
>>> better
>>> test our next KDE SC and
Hi Aleix,
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 20:34, Aleix Pol wrote:
> Anyhow, is the mailing list created already?
Yes, it was set up the same days as the mail was sent out:
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-testing
Regards, Myriam
--
Proud member of the Amarok and KDE Community
Protect your fr
On 04/08/2012 07:11 AM, Percy Camilo Triveño Aucahuasi wrote:
Hi Anne, hi all
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
>This is addressed for 4.9 as "putting in place a few
>selected areas of functional testing" and hopefully
>we will assess some automated UI testing tools
>and start
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf <
annemarie.mahf...@free.fr> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Indeed, Nice idea, I think this is the right focus to (auto)test the
> functionality/features of the app. I've searched some info about this topic
> and found this:
>
> http://ldtp.freedesktop.org/wik
El Diumenge, 8 d'abril de 2012, a les 17:13:54, Pau Garcia i Quiles va
escriure:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf <
>
> annemarie.mahf...@free.fr> wrote:
> > **
> >
> >
> > Indeed, Nice idea, I think this is the right focus to (auto)test the
> > functionality/features of the
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>
> Did you guys ever try Testability? I've been using lately and works pretty
> well and has the added value of being Free Software.
>
>
Do you mean this tool?
http://code.google.com/p/testability-explorer/
TestComplete, Squish, LDTP, et
El Diumenge, 8 d'abril de 2012, a les 17:48:03, Pau Garcia i Quiles va
escriure:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > Did you guys ever try Testability? I've been using lately and works pretty
> > well and has the added value of being Free Software.
>
> Do you mean this
On Friday 06 April 2012, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team within KDE in order to
> >> better test our next KDE SC and make t
On 09.04.12 12:58:02, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2012, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team wi
On 04/09/2012 01:15 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 09.04.12 12:58:02, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2012, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
wrote:
Hi,
We would like to setup a Quality Testin
On Monday, April 09, 2012 02:05:28 PM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2012 13:15:26 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > > There is not only Jenkins, but also CDash, which integrates nicely with
> > > our
> > > cmake-based build system.
> > >
> > > I was trying to set up nightly builds for the KD
> Well, I'd say jenkins has a lot more to offer than cdash. Its also a lot
> simpler to use, setup and understand for newcomers in my opinion. With
> jenkins I can have a shell-script job which runs cmake && make && make
> test and be done. Setting up a build for submission to cdash takes a lot
> m
On 09.04.12 13:28:31, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 01:15 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> >On 09.04.12 12:58:02, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >>On Friday 06 April 2012, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> >>>On 04/06/2012 02:23 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Anne-Marie M
On 09.04.12 14:29:27, Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Monday, April 09, 2012 02:05:28 PM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Monday 09 April 2012 13:15:26 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > > > There is not only Jenkins, but also CDash, which integrates nicely with
> > > > our
> > > > cmake-based build system.
> > > >
On 09.04.12 16:27:17, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > Well, I'd say jenkins has a lot more to offer than cdash. Its also a lot
> > simpler to use, setup and understand for newcomers in my opinion. With
> > jenkins I can have a shell-script job which runs cmake && make && make
> > test and be done. Setting u
> Hmm, that may work if your project has usually no warnings, but I find
> this for warnings to be too much noise.
We have also had many warnings back then. :-)
> The CI mails should immediately
> tell me if CI is considered broken (and warnings are often not
> considered that) or not and if its
On 09.04.12 23:29:17, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> I will also try out this Jenkins in the future once I find the time
> >> for that, but I have been a happy CDash user for about ten months by
> >> now. :-)
> >
> > build.kde.org can give you a pretty good idea of how jenkins "looks" and
> > can be used
> Also IIRC there was a blog-post inviting people to submit requests for the
> addition of their
> projects.
I believe, I missed that.
> I also don't see any KDE playground apps on my.cdash.org :)
http://my.cdash.org/index.php?project=Gluon
http://my.cdash.org/index.php?project=QtOpenAL (You do
>> I also don't see any KDE playground apps on my.cdash.org :)
>
> http://my.cdash.org/index.php?project=Gluon
> http://my.cdash.org/index.php?project=QtOpenAL (You do not find it in
> playground since it was deleted 1-2 days ago after migrating to Qt
> Playground, but it has been hosted there).
A
On Thursday 05 April 2012 7:42:48 AM Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A new mailing list has been set up in order to discuss all this: please
> subscribe to it if you would like to be part of this
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-testing
> An IRC channel also was created on Freenod
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 09:20:57 AM Allen Winter wrote:
> On Thursday 05 April 2012 7:42:48 AM Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > A new mailing list has been set up in order to discuss all this: please
> > subscribe to it if you would like to be part of this
> > https://mail.kde.org
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 00:38, Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 09:20:57 AM Allen Winter wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 April 2012 7:42:48 AM Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> > A new mailing list has been set up in order to discuss all this: please
>> > subscribe to it i
On April 10, 2012 06:45:17 AM Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> That having said, CDash was designed with CMake in mind. We already
> >> depend on CMake and CTest.
> >
> > We actually do not depend on CTest, that is an optional tool, one can
> > run the tests without ctest (in fact I've never used CTest on
On 10.04.12 06:45:17, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> [...]
> > all I care about is that its easy to get a project set up to
> > be build continously (and the unit-tests executed) and wether it
> > provides more than just build errors/warnings and test-results. Since
> > some of these things are handy - espec
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 6:38:52 PM Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 09:20:57 AM Allen Winter wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 April 2012 7:42:48 AM Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > A new mailing list has been set up in order to discuss all this: please
> > > subsc
On Wednesday 11 April 2012, Matthew Dawson wrote:
> On April 10, 2012 06:45:17 AM Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > >> That having said, CDash was designed with CMake in mind. We already
> > >> depend on CMake and CTest.
> > >
> > > We actually do not depend on CTest, that is an optional tool, one can
> > >
On Wednesday 11 April 2012, Michael Jansen wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 09:20:57 AM Allen Winter wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 April 2012 7:42:48 AM Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > A new mailing list has been set up in order to discuss all this: please
> > > subscribe to
On Wednesday 11 April 2012, Allen Winter wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2012 6:38:52 PM Michael Jansen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 09:20:57 AM Allen Winter wrote:
> > > On Thursday 05 April 2012 7:42:48 AM Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A new mailing list ha
Okay, back to this list then from kde-testing. I have at least tried. :)
> Actually, make test invokes CTest behind the scenes[1].
Actually, yes. :-)
> That being said, if
> we aren't uploading results anywhere, CTest only runs the test executables and
> offers nothing else (in this case). If t
Anne,
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Anne-Marie Mahfouf
>Yes this is maybe the best free tool to do the job.
>DO you or anybody have used it already?
>
>Thanks for your input,
Unfortunately I have no experience on this tool, but when I check all the
next emails I'm glad there is a lot of feedbac
Hi,
Am 9. April 2012 13:15 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
> Well, I'd say jenkins has a lot more to offer than cdash. Its also a lot
> simpler to use, setup and understand for newcomers in my opinion. With
> jenkins I can have a shell-script job which runs cmake && make && make
> test and be done. Setti
On 04/05/12 17:12, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
Hi,
We would like to setup a Quality Testing Team within KDE in order to
better test our next KDE SC and make the beta process more efficient.
Attached is the first draft of the ideas I brainstormed. Source .odt
of this document is available at
http
On Sunday 08 April 2012, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Diumenge, 8 d'abril de 2012, a les 17:13:54, Pau Garcia i Quiles va
...
> > I can tell you TestComplete's support for Qt is pretty limited. I have
> > not tested LDTP because we needed support for Windows and Linux for our
> > Qt projects.
> >
Hi dE
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 15:25, dE . wrote:
...
> Apart from whatever's being discussed here, the testing phase should be
> publicized and called for testers (for e.g. the first page should talk about
> this and call for testing as a contribution).
>
> Instructions for testing on every popul
On Thursday 12 April 2012 21.01.53 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> We use Squish at work and it works well.
I've been on many projects and often the project manager thinks they need
squish, but in the end it just doesn't have any positive impact on the product
or the quality.
The most recent project
On Thursday 12 April 2012, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2012 21.01.53 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > We use Squish at work and it works well.
>
> I've been on many projects and often the project manager thinks they need
> squish, but in the end it just doesn't have any positive impac
On 12.04.12 21:01:53, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Sunday 08 April 2012, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El Diumenge, 8 d'abril de 2012, a les 17:13:54, Pau Garcia i Quiles va
> ...
> > > I can tell you TestComplete's support for Qt is pretty limited. I have
> > > not tested LDTP because we needed s
On 12.04.12 22:26:33, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2012 21.01.53 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > We use Squish at work and it works well.
>
> I've been on many projects and often the project manager thinks they need
> squish, but in the end it just doesn't have any positive impact on
On Thursday 12 April 2012, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 12.04.12 21:01:53, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 08 April 2012, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > El Diumenge, 8 d'abril de 2012, a les 17:13:54, Pau Garcia i Quiles va
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > I can tell you TestComplete's support for
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:49:10 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Yes, how good squish works for you depends on at least two things:
We also use Squish, and it found bugs and regressions in our code.
Still, there is a big problem with it: the test needs to be maintained
constantly. If they are
On Monday 16 April 2012 08:02:51 Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:49:10 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Yes, how good squish works for you depends on at least two things:
> We also use Squish, and it found bugs and regressions in our code.
> Still, there is a big problem with
On Monday, April 16, 2012 08:59:13 AM Volker Krause wrote:
> I don't think UI is necessarily easier to change than internal API,
> the key difference is that you'll get a compile error for the unit
> test, while you wont notice a broken Squish test immediately.
I was thinking about such innocent
On 16.04.12 23:52:00, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 08:59:13 AM Volker Krause wrote:
> > I don't think UI is necessarily easier to change than internal API,
> > the key difference is that you'll get a compile error for the unit
> > test, while you wont notice a broken Squish tes
On Monday 16 April 2012, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 08:59:13 AM Volker Krause wrote:
> > I don't think UI is necessarily easier to change than internal API,
> > the key difference is that you'll get a compile error for the unit
> > test, while you wont notice a broken Squish
On Saturday 14 April 2012, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > Afterwards it runs cppcheck on the source code...
>
> That is a really nice advantage, if it can be integrated with handy
> tools. Although, I would personally like to use much more advanced and
> useful tools than cppcheck.
>
> [...]
>
> > But o
On Monday 09 April 2012 13:15:26 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> >
> > There is not only Jenkins, but also CDash, which integrates nicely with
> > our
> > cmake-based build system.
> >
> > I was trying to set up nightly builds for the KDE modules two years ago or
> > so (hosted on http://my.cdash.org, s
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 06:45:17 Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > all I care about is that its easy to get a project set up to
> > be build continously (and the unit-tests executed) and wether it
> > provides more than just build errors/warnings and test-results. Since
> > some of these things are handy - e
> Afterwards it runs cppcheck on the source code...
That is a really nice advantage, if it can be integrated with handy
tools. Although, I would personally like to use much more advanced and
useful tools than cppcheck.
[...]
> But overall these are two very useful solutions which do not compete w
52 matches
Mail list logo
