QAAutomationIRCMeetings-2
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
These are the IRC minutes of the second Automation meeting on IRC found place at Monday 16th July
- BEGINNE LOGBUCH UM Mon Jul 16 08:52:25 2007
Remove branch tags from all non-working and unused files for the upcoming 2.3 branch. (JSK)
Jul 16 09:00:22 sunrayjogi Welcome to the second Automated GUI Testing IRC meeting! Jul 16 09:00:53 sunrayjogi The Agenda is taken from the WIKI (see IRC title) and we start with skotti's point Jul 16 09:00:54 sunrayjogi 1. Remove branch tags from all non-working and unused files for the upcoming 2.3 branch. (JSK) Jul 16 09:00:59 sunrayjogi skotti: your turn Jul 16 09:02:08 skotti sorry for the delay Jul 16 09:02:43 ExLachs_home usually you just delete the file in CVS so you can still check out older versions of the branch Jul 16 09:02:59 skotti I wanted to suggest that we remove all 2.3 tags from the tests that do not run on a 2.3. Jul 16 09:03:09 sunrayjogi ExLachs_: please wait until skotti has described his issue Jul 16 09:03:45 sunrayjogi All: Any comments? Jul 16 09:03:46 skotti This has been done by sun_msc and me last time and made it easier for the guys outside sun to distinguish working and non-working tests Jul 16 09:03:57 maho great Jul 16 09:04:31 skotti So if somebody checks out the branch, all tests from that set of files are expected to work Jul 16 09:04:40 sunrayjogi All: Additional comments? Jul 16 09:04:44 skotti What do you think? Jul 16 09:04:51 sunrayjogi skotti: Thx, I think we have all understood what you meant. Jul 16 09:05:11 maho has 2.3 branch been created? Jul 16 09:05:12 ExLachs_home great idea expect that the information that the test once was part of the branch gets lost Jul 16 09:05:32 skotti maho: No Jul 16 09:05:45 sunrayjogi If a test is not usable in 2.3 why not removing it from the branch? Jul 16 09:05:46 skotti ExLachs_home: Yes, but does it matter? Jul 16 09:05:47 maho okay, then where do you annouce? dev@qa? Jul 16 09:06:12 sunrayjogi maho: why announcing and what? Jul 16 09:06:26 ExLachs_home I don't know, but if the branch has not been created enyway there is no informatuion loss of course Jul 16 09:07:10 ExLachs_home its always worth a thought before you throw away information if there is not another way to preserve it and get the same results Jul 16 09:07:13 maho for example, ooo230 is tagged in testscripts, then users can test OOo 2.3 with it Jul 16 09:07:35 maho sunrayjogi : for example, ooo230 is tagged in testscripts, then users can test OOo 2.3 with it Jul 16 09:08:06 skotti ExLachs_home: The branch will probably be created at some point. But i don't see any problem in junking the branchtags on non-working files. Jul 16 09:08:11 sunrayjogi maho: don't understand. If I have tests which won't work on a revision/release, I delete them Jul 16 09:08:32 sunrayjogi skotti: You have "non-working files" now in HEAD? Jul 16 09:08:49 skotti ExLachs_home: We have a list of working tests out, but the list is held current, when somebody wants to test a 2.3 at a later time he won't find the information anymore. Jul 16 09:08:51 maho sunrayjogi : for 2.3, we use testtool on HEAD? Jul 16 09:09:01 sunrayjogi maho: no Jul 16 09:09:11 maho sunrayjogi : then, which ? Jul 16 09:09:16 skotti sunrayjogi: No?!? Jul 16 09:09:47 sunrayjogi maho: we will create a branch if the first CWSes arriving at QA which differs from HEAD and OOG (?) Jul 16 09:10:18 sunrayjogi maho: that have we done all the time. The development is going on, so we need a branch for the test cases, too Jul 16 09:10:29 maho sunrayjogi : okay, if you create a branch please announce at somewhere. my recommendation is at dev@qa. Jul 16 09:10:39 maho sunrayjogi: okay Jul 16 09:10:41 sunrayjogi maho: "testtool" means in this case "qa/qatesttool" in CVS, am I right? Jul 16 09:10:48 maho sunrayjogi: right Jul 16 09:10:55 sunrayjogi maho: yes, we have done that all the time Jul 16 09:11:01 maho sunrayjogi: thanks!! Jul 16 09:11:15 sunrayjogi All: Back to the suggestion from skotti - Any comments? Jul 16 09:11:33 sunrayjogi skotti: You have one question not answered Jul 16 09:11:48 maho +1 for removing scripts that are not used Jul 16 09:11:49 sunrayjogi skotti: If a test is not usable in 2.3 why not removing it from the branch? Jul 16 09:12:09 sunrayjogi maho: we will do that after we have closed discussion, thx Jul 16 09:12:18 maho okay :) Jul 16 09:12:52 ExLachs_home sunrayjogi, what exactly "is remove it from tha branch" you can eather remove the branchtrag or mark it as dead on the branch Jul 16 09:12:54 skotti sunrayjogi: I guess it's answered at this point. Jul 16 09:13:12 skotti ExLachs_home: Remove the branch tag Jul 16 09:14:08 sunrayjogi ExLachs_home: We are not talking about code for software. We are talking about code for tests which matches to ONE release of a software under test. Jul 16 09:14:43 sunrayjogi ExLachs_home: skotti , as far as I understood him, wants to remove the branch tag from a .bas/.inc/... if the test does not work in that branch Jul 16 09:15:03 ExLachs_home sunrayjogi, ah, ok so you really don't need the prerelease information there Jul 16 09:15:09 sunrayjogi ExLachs_home: I suggested to DELETE the files FROM THE BRANCH because then you won't have it on your disk (the same result) Jul 16 09:15:24 sunrayjogi ExLachs_home: Yes Jul 16 09:15:33 skotti sunrayjogi: It would actually be sufficient to remove the branchtag from the .bas-file. But doing so also for .inc-files is cleaner Jul 16 09:15:44 sunrayjogi All: Other understandings of what I have summarized?# Jul 16 09:15:48 ExLachs_home sunrayjogi, deleting was what I suggested too Jul 16 09:16:02 sunrayjogi ExLachs_home: ok Jul 16 09:16:31 sunrayjogi skotti: IMHO you should not have unused inc-files NOW in the HEAD as well as in BRANCH... Jul 16 09:16:50 skotti sunrayjogi: It doesn't matter for the topic at hand. Jul 16 09:17:00 sunrayjogi skotti: Removing the tag can be forgotten, deleting a file not. Be sure :-) I prefer deleting... Jul 16 09:17:49 sunrayjogi All: Okay, no other sugestions.... ? I will summarize what has been written as I understood Jul 16 09:18:01 ExLachs_home deleting has the advantage that a file is even deleted if someone does a cvs update Jul 16 09:18:19 ExLachs_home if the tag is removed the file will just remain there Jul 16 09:19:27 sunrayjogi 1. Agenda issue: skotti has suggested to remove the branch tag from tests/files if they are not matching for that release (in that branch) e.g. ooo230 branch will a set of test scripts for OOo 2.3 and if a test / file in qa/qatesttool is not valid for that release remove the branch tag. Jul 16 09:20:12 sunrayjogi 2. sunrayjogi suggested to delete the file in the branch. The file won't be checked out, even if CVS UPDATE is being made (ExLachs_ * said) Jul 16 09:20:46 sunrayjogi All: Please vote for 1. or 2. - first we vote for 1. with "+1" (pro) or "-1" (contra) Jul 16 09:21:14 maho -1 for 1 Jul 16 09:21:24 sunrayjogi -1 for 1 Jul 16 09:21:25 oliverc -1 for 1 Jul 16 09:21:28 b_osi -1 Jul 16 09:21:59 ExLachs_home -1 Jul 16 09:22:02 skotti sunrayjogi: Removing the branch-tag corresponds to deleting the file from the branch, there is IMHO no difference between the two suggestions, however: -1 Jul 16 09:22:19 * sunrayjogi 3.... Jul 16 09:22:23 * sunrayjogi 2..... Jul 16 09:22:30 * sunrayjogi 1..... Jul 16 09:22:33 sunrayjogi okay Jul 16 09:22:48 sunrayjogi Voting for 2. : +1 for pro; -1 for contra Jul 16 09:22:54 ExLachs_home +1 Jul 16 09:22:56 b_osi +1 Jul 16 09:22:58 sunrayjogi +1 Jul 16 09:23:01 maho +1 Jul 16 09:23:01 skotti +1 Jul 16 09:23:06 oliverc +1 Jul 16 09:23:15 * sunrayjogi 3...... Jul 16 09:23:22 * sunrayjogi 2...... Jul 16 09:23:27 * sunrayjogi 1...... Jul 16 09:23:31 sunrayjogi DONG :-) Jul 16 09:24:20 sunrayjogi Okay, I will announce it that files in qa/qatesttool which are not valid for a release have to be removed otherwise an issue can be written to the owner of the file/test. next agenda issue
Get rid of "The first doc!" window? (JSI)
Jul 16 09:24:32 sunrayjogi 2. Get rid of "The first doc!" window? (JSI) Jul 16 09:24:48 sunrayjogi Situation today... we open a document and modify it. Jul 16 09:24:57 sunrayjogi This document is always present Jul 16 09:25:33 sunrayjogi I have had problems under X11 (Solaris SPARC 9) that instead of a loaded document in the test this "first doc" has been used for export. Jul 16 09:25:38 sunrayjogi The test failed. Jul 16 09:26:05 sunrayjogi There is (AFAIK) no parameter for X11 available to guaranteed get the focus into a window. Jul 16 09:26:39 sunrayjogi It would avoid problems if we stop the "first doc"-routine in HEAD (not for 2.3!) to get it done until 2.4. Jul 16 09:26:47 * sunrayjogi as moderator Jul 16 09:26:52 sunrayjogi All: Comments Jul 16 09:27:30 ExLachs_home the alternative would then be to have a backing window only at teststart? Jul 16 09:27:32 skotti sunrayjogi: This has another advantage that we would finally be able to test the office state without the options settings for Writer Jul 16 09:27:42 sunrayjogi ExLachs_home: yes Jul 16 09:28:14 oliverc Maybe someone should explain why this "feature" (first doc) was implemented Jul 16 09:28:20 sunrayjogi sunrayjogi: mhhh... that is also possible today if you close that window in your test.... Jul 16 09:28:29 skotti sunrayjogi: The disadvantage is that (especially in framework) the check for the first doc does not work anymore. That's some 30+ Tests to change Jul 16 09:28:30 sunrayjogi oliverc: yes. Jul 16 09:28:47 sunrayjogi skotti: That was reason to say 2.4 Jul 16 09:28:56 sunrayjogi skotti: We all have to change tests. Jul 16 09:29:06 skotti sunrayjogi: I know. I just wanted to inform about the impact. Jul 16 09:30:20 skotti sunrayjogi: There is an alternative though - that would be to enhance hNewDocument to allow actually closing the first doc thus treating the backingwindow just as any other documenttype Jul 16 09:30:22 sunrayjogi oliverc: The reason was (if I remember right) that we would otherwise close the office completely without knowledge (sometimes). In the past we did not have the DocumentCount() routine in TT. Jul 16 09:31:03 sunrayjogi skotti: From my point of view we have only to delete thefirstdoc() routine and have to check our tests. No other changes needed. Jul 16 09:31:12 sunrayjogi skotti: no other GLOBAL changes Jul 16 09:31:24 sunrayjogi skotti: the test maintainers have to do some work... Jul 16 09:31:48 sunrayjogi All: Other comments? Jul 16 09:32:07 skotti sunrayjogi: Quite possible. I just wanted to offer an alternative suolution in case someone turns up with a reason why your suggestion might be troublesome Jul 16 09:33:04 sunrayjogi skotti: Could you please explain? Jul 16 09:34:26 oliverc So, the main reason why the first doc was introduced has vanished and we have focus problems with the first doc => get rid of this routine Jul 16 09:34:41 skotti sunrayjogi: I rember running into a scenario where i tried to work with the backing window and ran into trouble - just can't remember what it was. Jul 16 09:35:19 sunrayjogi oliverc: no, we didn't want to close the whole application :-) Jul 16 09:35:52 sunrayjogi skotti: That would be an issue but doesn't hinder us to decide removing the additional (faking) routine Jul 16 09:35:53 skotti oliverc: There alwas was the reason for the first doc that you could - as the last step of your test - verify that the correct document is open. It's need in some cases and would have to be re-implemented somehow. But that's limited effort Jul 16 09:36:16 skotti sunrayjogi: Agreed Jul 16 09:36:51 sunrayjogi All: Okay, want to finish this agenda item..... Jul 16 09:37:45 oliverc sunrayjogi, The global routine hclosedocument should be enhanced with DocumentCount() to avoid closing OOo Jul 16 09:38:22 sunrayjogi oliverc: Agree... Jul 16 09:38:57 skotti oliverc: Does anyone know whether getDocumentCount really returns 0 on Backing-Window? Jul 16 09:39:19 maho So - I'm not against it, if you get rid of The first doc! we won't close whole office to proceed the other tests? Jul 16 09:39:23 sunrayjogi skotti: It works fine. I have used it in my level-1 tests now. Jul 16 09:39:38 skotti sunrayjogi: Then i guess we're good to go- Jul 16 09:39:46 sunrayjogi maho: you always should close the office if you start a new test (.bas) Jul 16 09:39:52 sunrayjogi skotti: ok Jul 16 09:39:58 maho sunrayjogi : I understand :) thanks Jul 16 09:40:26 ExLachs_home maho, but between several testcases there would be the backingwindow Jul 16 09:40:47 sunrayjogi All: +1 or -1 for getting rif-off 'FirstDoc()' routine to OOo 2.4 which needs in some cases modifications to tests. Jul 16 09:41:00 skotti +1 Jul 16 09:41:03 sunrayjogi +1 Jul 16 09:41:04 maho +1 for getting rid-off Jul 16 09:41:10 oliverc +1 Jul 16 09:41:11 b_osi +1 Jul 16 09:41:26 * sunrayjogi 3..... Jul 16 09:41:34 * sunrayjogi 2..... Jul 16 09:41:41 * sunrayjogi 1..... Jul 16 09:41:44 sunrayjogi DONE
Can the waits be tuned in / shortened? (smo)
shifted to next meeting (smo not available)
Adding new scripts to first and topten (sanity check) (smo)
shifted to next meeting (smo not available)
Jul 16 09:45:10 * sunrayjogi ....MEETING CLOSED....
Additional comments
Jul 16 09:46:06 ExLachs_home maybe in the wiki the next meeting should be at the TOP not at the bottom