Shouldn't they have these tests in-house?
Cheers,
Luis.
On 22 Oct 2007, at 23:51, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Andre Garzia wrote:
I have here a little proposal for the volunteers on this list. With
every release of an OS or Revolution we have some things breaking.
This is the nature of things, we can't change it but we can help fix
it.
What about we build a community "regression test", some test stacks.
Each volunteer or group of volunteer would build and mantain a little
stack to test some subset of revolution. With each release and
platform, they'd test it against the new thing and we could report
back to runrev and web.
I can host this and I can build the report thing and I volunteer to
build the regression test for socket routines and libURL (which never
breaks!)
This way a small group can do some impact and help Bill at QC and
RunRev team. Even if we can't test all of transcript and rev, if we
test 40% if it, still we can guarantee that this 40% is working or
broken which is nice anyway.
A group of people could take care of QT controler and routines
testing
and quickly catch things such as this volume issue very fast.
is this a good idea?
I think it's a great idea, but unfortunately some tests like what's
needed to see this QT error require manual work. So as long as
there's a framework for both automated and manual tests it should
be quite helpful.
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution