Difference between revisions of "QAAutomationIRCMeetings-2"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Meeting protocol)
Line 1: Line 1:
This is the summarized IRC-protocol of the second Automation meetinbg on IRC found place at Monday 16th July
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
**** BEGINNE LOGBUCH UM Mon Jul 16 08:52:25 2007

Revision as of 07:27, 23 July 2007

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
Personal tools