peer to peer regression test proposal (was Re: QT controller on Vista: how to change volume?)

Andre Garzia andre at andregarzia.com
Tue Oct 23 10:39:28 EDT 2007


Well, in Brazil we say: "he who has no dog, hunts with a cat".... if
they don't have these tests, or if their tests are not complete
enough, or even if they have it, nothing is stopping us from helping.

There are two objectives with us creating such tests:

1) quickly detect bugs and be able to generate a reports that is
useful to the runrev team, we can add to their tests. Testing is good.

2) quickly tell other developers what is not working and maybe provide
workarounds while runrev team patches it.

ok?

Andre

On 10/23/07, Luis <luis at anachreon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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 at 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 at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>


-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.



More information about the use-livecode mailing list