Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Peter Kovacs-3
Hi all,

With 4.2.0 in the pipe we need to substential tests.
Since we have figured in 4.1.4 that we need a more substential testing,
I wonder if we have volunteers that are willed to work in a more
coordinated test approach.

My Idea would be to organize a testplan, which tries to cover a good
amount of features used in the day to day live.
Then we write testcases, including test documents.
The goal would be that we can in the end efficiently execute testing,
maybe involving more people who would like to help out but dont know
where to start.

What do you think?

Please keep both list in the list for now. I do not know how many read
both lists. even if QA is pretty silent. (But I know QA people who are
not on development lists, so I use both.)

All the best
Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

DurgaPrasad Potnuru
+1

(willing to work in coordinated test approach, let me know how can I
contribute.. am not familiar with test plans for earlier version, so might
require some (minimal) guidance)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> With 4.2.0 in the pipe we need to substential tests.
> Since we have figured in 4.1.4 that we need a more substential testing, I
> wonder if we have volunteers that are willed to work in a more coordinated
> test approach.
>
> My Idea would be to organize a testplan, which tries to cover a good
> amount of features used in the day to day live.
> Then we write testcases, including test documents.
> The goal would be that we can in the end efficiently execute testing,
> maybe involving more people who would like to help out but dont know where
> to start.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Please keep both list in the list for now. I do not know how many read
> both lists. even if QA is pretty silent. (But I know QA people who are not
> on development lists, so I use both.)
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Kay Schenk-2
Hi all --
I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I don't
know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as wel​l.
Currently the output of the tests is included in the normal build output if
I'm not mistaken.  I think it would be valuable to provide a separate
formatted output file containing the googletest results -- see info on:

https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md

Generating an XML Report

and providing that as a separate file through the build process if at all
possible.

Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.


On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Anita Jeziorska <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm not experienced well, but can try to help.
>
>
>
> 2018-01-09 1:44 GMT+01:00 DurgaPrasad Potnuru <[hidden email]>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > (willing to work in coordinated test approach, let me know how can I
> > contribute.. am not familiar with test plans for earlier version, so
> might
> > require some (minimal) guidance)
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > With 4.2.0 in the pipe we need to substential tests.
> > > Since we have figured in 4.1.4 that we need a more substential
> testing, I
> > > wonder if we have volunteers that are willed to work in a more
> > coordinated
> > > test approach.
> > >
> > > My Idea would be to organize a testplan, which tries to cover a good
> > > amount of features used in the day to day live.
> > > Then we write testcases, including test documents.
> > > The goal would be that we can in the end efficiently execute testing,
> > > maybe involving more people who would like to help out but dont know
> > where
> > > to start.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Please keep both list in the list for now. I do not know how many read
> > > both lists. even if QA is pretty silent. (But I know QA people who are
> > not
> > > on development lists, so I use both.)
> > >
> > > All the best
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
>



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Ring out the false, ring in the true."
 -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Andrea Pescetti-2
Kay Schenk wrote:
> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I don't
> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as wel​l.

Sure, this would be very nice to have!

But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly focused on
manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the
typical use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute
them and share results.

Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list;
indeed Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to
have more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will
stay focused on the manual part.

> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.

It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4
regressions to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs
won't occur again in next releases.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Morris Moore
In reply to this post by DurgaPrasad Potnuru
I would like to get started developing so this would be a good place to start
I have setup the build env and have built get latest on Linux

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 3:22 AM, Anita Jeziorska <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not experienced well, but can try to help.
>
>
>
> 2018-01-09 1:44 GMT+01:00 DurgaPrasad Potnuru <[hidden email]>:
>
>> +1
>>
>> (willing to work in coordinated test approach, let me know how can I
>> contribute.. am not familiar with test plans for earlier version, so might
>> require some (minimal) guidance)
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> With 4.2.0 in the pipe we need to substential tests.
>>> Since we have figured in 4.1.4 that we need a more substential testing, I
>>> wonder if we have volunteers that are willed to work in a more
>> coordinated
>>> test approach.
>>>
>>> My Idea would be to organize a testplan, which tries to cover a good
>>> amount of features used in the day to day live.
>>> Then we write testcases, including test documents.
>>> The goal would be that we can in the end efficiently execute testing,
>>> maybe involving more people who would like to help out but dont know
>> where
>>> to start.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Please keep both list in the list for now. I do not know how many read
>>> both lists. even if QA is pretty silent. (But I know QA people who are
>> not
>>> on development lists, so I use both.)
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I don't
>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as wel​l.
>>
>
> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
>
> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly focused on
> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the typical
> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them and
> share results.
>
> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list; indeed
> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to have
> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will stay
> focused on the manual part.
>

​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping the
"testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have found the
XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to DEV
on how we can use this.



>
> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
>>
>
> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4 regressions
> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur again
> in next releases.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Ring out the false, ring in the true."
 -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Morris Moore
How to get involved in testing as volunteer

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Kay Schenk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I don't
>>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as wel​l.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
>>
>> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly focused on
>> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the typical
>> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them and
>> share results.
>>
>> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list; indeed
>> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to have
>> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will stay
>> focused on the manual part.
>>
>
> ​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping the
> "testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have found the
> XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to DEV
> on how we can use this.
> ​
>
>
>>
>> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
>>>
>>
>> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4 regressions
>> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur again
>> in next releases.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Ring out the false, ring in the true."
> -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Kay Schenk-2
No you have not.
Look at the numbers. We have a team of 2 + myself to build test cases and a test concept.

Without automatisation of user based test this will be very slow.

So yes please, go through the technical test we have and if you could setup a list in one wiki this is wonderful. I would very much like to end up with one big test scenario. Not devise technical and user focus for blaming reasons. This is not necessary.

I will sign on QA soon and try help to work on creating test cases.

Btw is it possible to get tooling for this?
I mean of apache will

All the best
Peter

Am 10. Januar 2018 17:43:00 MEZ schrieb Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>:

>On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I
>don't
>>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as
>wel​l.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
>>
>> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly focused
>on
>> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the
>typical
>> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them
>and
>> share results.
>>
>> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list;
>indeed
>> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to
>have
>> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will
>stay
>> focused on the manual part.
>>
>
>​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping the
>"testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have found
>the
>XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to
>DEV
>on how we can use this.
>​
>
>
>>
>> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
>>>
>>
>> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4
>regressions
>> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur
>again
>> in next releases.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Peter Kovacs-2
In reply to this post by Morris Moore
You can download 4.2.0 and start on your own. Or and you can state that you would like to help in a coordinated effort. Then we talk about it soon on QA.
You are most welcome whatever your choice is.

Sorry I am just slow...

Am 11. Januar 2018 03:05:29 MEZ schrieb Morris Moore <[hidden email]>:

>How to get involved in testing as volunteer
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I
>don't
>>>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as
>wel​l.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
>>>
>>> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly
>focused on
>>> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the
>typical
>>> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them
>and
>>> share results.
>>>
>>> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list;
>indeed
>>> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to
>have
>>> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will
>stay
>>> focused on the manual part.
>>>
>>
>> ​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping
>the
>> "testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have
>found the
>> XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to
>DEV
>> on how we can use this.
>> ​
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4
>regressions
>>> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur
>again
>>> in next releases.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>  Andrea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "Ring out the false, ring in the true."
>> -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Driss Ben Zoubeir
Hi Peter,

I can spend About 3hours per week for open office testing. What is the best
way to get quickly involved and run tests?

Regards
Driss

Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> schrieb am Do. 11. Jan. 2018 um 17:33:

> You can download 4.2.0 and start on your own. Or and you can state that
> you would like to help in a coordinated effort. Then we talk about it soon
> on QA.
> You are most welcome whatever your choice is.
>
> Sorry I am just slow...
>
> Am 11. Januar 2018 03:05:29 MEZ schrieb Morris Moore <[hidden email]
> >:
> >How to get involved in testing as volunteer
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 10, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti
> ><[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I
> >don't
> >>>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as
> >wel​l.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
> >>>
> >>> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly
> >focused on
> >>> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the
> >typical
> >>> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them
> >and
> >>> share results.
> >>>
> >>> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list;
> >indeed
> >>> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to
> >have
> >>> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will
> >stay
> >>> focused on the manual part.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping
> >the
> >> "testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have
> >found the
> >> XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to
> >DEV
> >> on how we can use this.
> >> ​
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4
> >regressions
> >>> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur
> >again
> >>> in next releases.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>  Andrea.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> MzK
> >>
> >> "Ring out the false, ring in the true."
> >> -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No you have not.
> Look at the numbers. We have a team of 2 + myself to build test cases and
> a test concept.
>
> Without automatisation of user based test this will be very slow.
>
> So yes please, go through the technical test we have and if you could
> setup a list in one wiki this is wonderful. I would very much like to end
> up with one big test scenario. Not devise technical and user focus for
> blaming reasons. This is not necessary.
>

​I will certainly do what I can to retreive these reports from Googletest
and make them readable by everyone.​



> I will sign on QA soon and try help to work on creating test cases.
>

​T
​he old test cases are still available on AOO's Testlink​. See:
http://aootesting.adfinis-sygroup.org/
But navigating around this can be a bit confusing. I actually was an admin
on this at one point, but today my old account did not work and I needed to
reapply and was given "guest" access. What this means is we don't seem to
have an "admin" to give folks permisisns to upload new cases to run; or do
any other admin type functions on this. NO idea who the super-admin is for
this -- maybe none?

In any case, the old test cases might be a good starting point, in addition
to the information on how to run BVT tests etc. as described on --
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Testlink and
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA



>
> Btw is it possible to get tooling for this?
>

​If you mean tooling on dealing with the output from the builds, I think we
can do quite a lot within the build scripts, but not sure about porting
info to a host outside the build hosts environment. We could try and see
what happens.



> I mean of apache will
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> Am 10. Januar 2018 17:43:00 MEZ schrieb Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>:
> >On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>
> >>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I
> >don't
> >>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as
> >wel​l.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
> >>
> >> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly focused
> >on
> >> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the
> >typical
> >> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them
> >and
> >> share results.
> >>
> >> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list;
> >indeed
> >> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to
> >have
> >> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will
> >stay
> >> focused on the manual part.
> >>
> >
> >​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping the
> >"testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have found
> >the
> >XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to
> >DEV
> >on how we can use this.
> >​
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4
> >regressions
> >> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur
> >again
> >> in next releases.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>   Andrea.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Ring out the false, ring in the true."
 -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Driss Ben Zoubeir
Hi Kay, Hi Open Office community,

my name is Driss from Munich. I started before 3 years as developer
volounteer in Open Office community and successfully solved some bugs.  But
because of some reasons I was not able to continue.
Now I have about 3hours or even more per Week to help with testing.
I already have some basic knowledge on testing: Google Test, Unity, Google
Mock, CMock, Tessy..
I would appreciate if you can help me to start contributing on testing.

Best regards

2018-01-11 23:02 GMT+01:00 Kay Schenk <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > No you have not.
> > Look at the numbers. We have a team of 2 + myself to build test cases and
> > a test concept.
> >
> > Without automatisation of user based test this will be very slow.
> >
> > So yes please, go through the technical test we have and if you could
> > setup a list in one wiki this is wonderful. I would very much like to end
> > up with one big test scenario. Not devise technical and user focus for
> > blaming reasons. This is not necessary.
> >
>
> ​I will certainly do what I can to retreive these reports from Googletest
> and make them readable by everyone.​
>
>
>
> > I will sign on QA soon and try help to work on creating test cases.
> >
>
> ​T
> ​he old test cases are still available on AOO's Testlink​. See:
> http://aootesting.adfinis-sygroup.org/
> But navigating around this can be a bit confusing. I actually was an admin
> on this at one point, but today my old account did not work and I needed to
> reapply and was given "guest" access. What this means is we don't seem to
> have an "admin" to give folks permisisns to upload new cases to run; or do
> any other admin type functions on this. NO idea who the super-admin is for
> this -- maybe none?
>
> In any case, the old test cases might be a good starting point, in addition
> to the information on how to run BVT tests etc. as described on --
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Testlink and
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA
>
>
>
> >
> > Btw is it possible to get tooling for this?
> >
>
> ​If you mean tooling on dealing with the output from the builds, I think we
> can do quite a lot within the build scripts, but not sure about porting
> info to a host outside the build hosts environment. We could try and see
> what happens.
> ​
>
>
> > I mean of apache will
> >
> > All the best
> > Peter
> >
> > Am 10. Januar 2018 17:43:00 MEZ schrieb Kay Schenk <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Kay Schenk wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I know we have a number of Google tests incorporated currently. I
> > >don't
> > >>> know much about how to construct these, but I'd like to help as
> > >wel​l.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Sure, this would be very nice to have!
> > >>
> > >> But the discussion here (especially on the QA list) is mostly focused
> > >on
> > >> manual testing by humans. So writing simple testcases down for the
> > >typical
> > >> use of Writer, Calc and so on and then coordinating to execute them
> > >and
> > >> share results.
> > >>
> > >> Let's keep the discussion about automated testing for the dev list;
> > >indeed
> > >> Damjan already enabled some them in trunk and it would be good to
> > >have
> > >> more. But this is a matter for developers, while QA volunteers will
> > >stay
> > >> focused on the manual part.
> > >>
> > >
> > >​OK. I may have misconstrued Peter's initial comments about keeping the
> > >"testing plan" on both the QA and DEV lists. In any case, I have found
> > >the
> > >XML output from gtest buried in my build output, and will get back to
> > >DEV
> > >on how we can use this.
> > >​
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Any thoughts on this? I would be happy to investigate.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It would be wonderful to have automated coverage for the 4.1.4
> > >regressions
> > >> to start with. This way we can guarantee that those bugs won't occur
> > >again
> > >> in next releases.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>   Andrea.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Ring out the false, ring in the true."
>  -- poem "In Memoriam", Alfred Lord Tennyson
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
+1

> On Jan 8, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> ...
> What do you think?
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Peter Kovacs-3
Sorry I wanted, but I am stuck in other topics :(

I am glad if someone else gets in the "test bus" and starts driving.


On 23.01.2018 16:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>
> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Hi Jim,

Maybe you could try to do a build on CentOS with --with-system-libxml
and --with-system-libxslt to see if this problem can be resolved:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315

My "unofficial" 4.2.0-Beta for Windows (incl. Language Pack and SDK) can
be found here:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/

Regards, Matthias

P.S.: I just found out about --macosx-target. Maybe this would be
helpful for macOS builds?


Am 23.01.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>
> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
Will do. I'll fire it up later on today or early tomorrow

> On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Maybe you could try to do a build on CentOS with --with-system-libxml
> and --with-system-libxslt to see if this problem can be resolved:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315
>
> My "unofficial" 4.2.0-Beta for Windows (incl. Language Pack and SDK) can
> be found here:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/
>
> Regards, Matthias
>
> P.S.: I just found out about --macosx-target. Maybe this would be
> helpful for macOS builds?
>
>
> Am 23.01.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>>
>> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
Just a FYI that this required libxslt-devel to be installed...

Building as we speak... (CentOS6, 64bit)

> On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Will do. I'll fire it up later on today or early tomorrow
>
>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Maybe you could try to do a build on CentOS with --with-system-libxml
>> and --with-system-libxslt to see if this problem can be resolved:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315
>>
>> My "unofficial" 4.2.0-Beta for Windows (incl. Language Pack and SDK) can
>> be found here:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>> P.S.: I just found out about --macosx-target. Maybe this would be
>> helpful for macOS builds?
>>
>>
>> Am 23.01.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>>>
>>> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Matthias Seidel
My 4.2.0 development builds for Linux64, built on CentOS6, are
being uploaded to:

    http://people.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1823225/

for testing to see if that resolves the below bug.

PS: Re the --macosx-target. If it's been unused, I'm not comfy starting
    to use it ;)

> On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Maybe you could try to do a build on CentOS with --with-system-libxml
> and --with-system-libxslt to see if this problem can be resolved:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315
>
> My "unofficial" 4.2.0-Beta for Windows (incl. Language Pack and SDK) can
> be found here:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/
>
> Regards, Matthias
>
> P.S.: I just found out about --macosx-target. Maybe this would be
> helpful for macOS builds?
>
>
> Am 23.01.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>>
>> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Matthias Seidel
Am 07.02.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> My 4.2.0 development builds for Linux64, built on CentOS6, are
> being uploaded to:
>
>     http://people.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1823225/
>
> for testing to see if that resolves the below bug.

Great, but:
You don't have permission to access
/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1823225/de/Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_de.tar.gz
on this server. ;-)

Matthias

>
> PS: Re the --macosx-target. If it's been unused, I'm not comfy starting
>     to use it ;)
>
>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Maybe you could try to do a build on CentOS with --with-system-libxml
>> and --with-system-libxslt to see if this problem can be resolved:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315
>>
>> My "unofficial" 4.2.0-Beta for Windows (incl. Language Pack and SDK) can
>> be found here:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>> P.S.: I just found out about --macosx-target. Maybe this would be
>> helpful for macOS builds?
>>
>>
>> Am 23.01.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>>>
>>> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Organizing testing for 4.2.0

Jim Jagielski
Sorry. All fixed.

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 07.02.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> My 4.2.0 development builds for Linux64, built on CentOS6, are
>> being uploaded to:
>>
>>    http://people.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1823225/
>>
>> for testing to see if that resolves the below bug.
>
> Great, but:
> You don't have permission to access
> /~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1823225/de/Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_de.tar.gz
> on this server. ;-)
>
> Matthias
>
>>
>> PS: Re the --macosx-target. If it's been unused, I'm not comfy starting
>>    to use it ;)
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Maybe you could try to do a build on CentOS with --with-system-libxml
>>> and --with-system-libxslt to see if this problem can be resolved:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127315
>>>
>>> My "unofficial" 4.2.0-Beta for Windows (incl. Language Pack and SDK) can
>>> be found here:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/
>>>
>>> Regards, Matthias
>>>
>>> P.S.: I just found out about --macosx-target. Maybe this would be
>>> helpful for macOS builds?
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 23.01.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> So what is the plan for a 4.2.0-beta release?
>>>>
>>>> Is someone "driving" that effort?
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12