You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to qa@openoffice.apache.org by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> on 2020/10/24 18:13:56 UTC
QA Automated Test coverage
Hi All,
I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
I have a few questions:
1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
provide vs.functionality?
2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
contributors if we had a place to work from.
Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I
don't think we use anymore and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
But this list seems to describe the automated tests. At least some that
I've looked at.
Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
Management is also a 404.
[1] https://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-qa.html
[2] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
[3] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
Best regards,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org>.
Hi Andrea,
On 10/27/20 5:58 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
>> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which
>> I don't think we use anymore
>
> Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the
> recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis
> contributed a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links
> and then moved away with our data. At least, all references to the
> Adfinis link should be removed.
>
>> and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
>
> No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at
> least I cannot find them in the wiki.
>
>> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
>> Management is also a 404.
>
> This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted
> by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others
> around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to
> their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are
> obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back,
> unfortunately: they provided very good coverage and helped building a
> QA community.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
There seem to be quite a bit of automated functional tests. around 800.
Not all get ran on all platforms but I have no way to know yet how much
that covers.
I'm looking into different options to make them a little friendlier for
new QA contributors to build and use.
Easier and used more :)
It seems that they are setup to be built by ant only after a build of
the office because the ant build uses artifacts from the solver
directory after a build.
Things like the UNO jars and idlc.
These files could easily be used from the office and sdk to be tested or
the installed office so a QA doesn't have to build the office first to
use them.
Best regards,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Pedro Lino <pe...@mailbox.org.INVALID>.
Hi Peter
> On 10/29/2020 10:47 AM Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> How about creating an automated manual test RPA robot as a GSoC?
>
> Just a wild idea.
I think that if one of the people reading this email today knows how to fix this (and has the time/urge to scratch this itch) then it is better to fix it now...
Waiting for someone (that may never arrive) to fix it because it is very simple is pushing the problem into the future...
Just my 2 cents!
Regards,
Pedro
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
How about creating an automated manual test RPA robot as a GSoC?
Just a wild idea.
Am 28. Oktober 2020 22:42:11 MEZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
>Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> Maybe the following link helps?
>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
>
>Indeed, this section
>https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>seems to contain at least some of the recent (2012) testcases. So one
>could use this as a basis if we want to restart manual tests.
>
>Just for clarity, the subject refers to "automated" tests but I was
>replying to the items concerning manual tests. On the other hand,
>automated tests are definitely important; I'm just not familiar at all
>with automated tests in OpenOffice.
>
>Regards,
> Andrea Pescetti.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Peter Kovacs wrote:
> Maybe the following link helps?
> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
Indeed, this section
https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
seems to contain at least some of the recent (2012) testcases. So one
could use this as a basis if we want to restart manual tests.
Just for clarity, the subject refers to "automated" tests but I was
replying to the items concerning manual tests. On the other hand,
automated tests are definitely important; I'm just not familiar at all
with automated tests in OpenOffice.
Regards,
Andrea Pescetti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
Maybe the following link helps?
https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
Kay did migrate stuff in 2018 I think. Maybe went a bit unnoticed?
Is this what the Server had contained?
Am 27.10.20 um 22:58 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
>> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which
>> I don't think we use anymore
>
> Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the
> recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis
> contributed a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links
> and then moved away with our data. At least, all references to the
> Adfinis link should be removed.
>
>> and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
>
> No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at
> least I cannot find them in the wiki.
>
>> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
>> Management is also a 404.
>
> This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted
> by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others
> around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to
> their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are
> obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back,
> unfortunately: they provided very good coverage and helped building a
> QA community.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Andrea,
Am 27.10.20 um 22:58 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
>> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which
>> I don't think we use anymore
>
> Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the
> recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis
> contributed a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links
> and then moved away with our data. At least, all references to the
> Adfinis link should be removed.
Was that AdfinisSygroup, the same that hosted our OpenGrok Server and
then pulled it?
They are now with LO...
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2019/05/23/the-document-foundation-welcomes-adfinis-sygroup-to-the-projects-advisory-board/
I abstain from judgement. ;-)
Regards,
Matthias
>
>> and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
>
> No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at
> least I cannot find them in the wiki.
>
>> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
>> Management is also a 404.
>
> This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted
> by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others
> around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to
> their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are
> obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back,
> unfortunately: they provided very good coverage and helped building a
> QA community.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I don't think we use anymore
Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the
recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis contributed
a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links and then moved
away with our data. At least, all references to the Adfinis link should
be removed.
> and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at least
I cannot find them in the wiki.
> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
> Management is also a 404.
This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted
by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others
around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to
their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are
obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back, unfortunately:
they provided very good coverage and helped building a QA community.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org>.
Hi Damjan,
On 10/28/20 12:21 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:14 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
>> I have a few questions:
>>
>> 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
>> provide vs.functionality?
>>
>> 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
>>
>> I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
>> contributors if we had a place to work from.
>> Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
>>
>> I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
>>
>>
> Hi Carl
>
> Thank you for helping with the tests.
>
> I wrote a good email summarizing the different tests we have some years
> ago, please see
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb1851b82ba009d2cefdf5af9997099b6fdfb04bddac3753172f2698%401459253891%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
> Some things changed since then, eg. the smoketest location moved. There are
> a few other emails too, search for them.
>
> I also did some test fixes to bvt/fvt and others at various times. This
> year I learned quite a lot about them. For example many tests fail because
> they expect features that the .DOC file format cannot provide (such as
> strikeout styles unique to .ODT), there were timeouts, registry
> modifications had to be enabled to fix a test, confirmation dialogs that
> hang the tests, a 2048 byte limit in FreeBSD's "ps" was causing a pid
> lookup to fail, java.util.Calendar was being used incorrectly, etc. I fixed
> some of these, but others remain. Understanding why the .DOC tests fail
> requires understanding the .DOC file format, so fixing those tests isn't
> easy. Look through the Git log, I wrote pretty descriptive commit messages.
>
> One thing I didn't mention in that email is the thousands of unused tests
> we have in main/qadevOOo, but they seem difficult to set up, and use a
> custom test framework, not JUnit. They have a complex architecture, with
> some code implementing UNO components and some code testing them. There
> might even be code missing for some of them. There's a mixture of Java and
> StarBasic tests there, with much duplication - were they first written in
> one language then semi-ported to another?
>
> Anyway I can't help much at the moment, but good luck and let us know how
> it goes.
>
> Damjan
>
Thanks for the great information and the email link.
I saw some of commits on some of the flaky tests where you added a sleep
before checking the results.
I think there are more of these but I was holding off thinking it would
be low hanging fruit for a new volunteer :)
But I'll take care if it if not.
I liked Patricia's suggestion of a page for this work. I'll try to find
if one was started and if not start one.
I'll look into testing the OOO_SUBSEQUENT_TESTS flag also.
It seems building the bvt/fvt tests using ant require an office to have
been built and use idlc and the uno jars from solver like:
test/smoketestdoc.build.xml imports main/ant.properties which includes
OUTDIR=<my-path-to-source>/openoffice/main/solver/450/unxlngx6.pro
OUTDIR is used in the path to idlc and the build fails if I've cleaned
the office build.
I think it would be good if we could use idlc and uno jars from
whichever office is under test so you don't need a build environment
necessarily but I'm still looking at the implications of that.
Please let me know if you have an opinion on that since you've dug a lot
deeper.
Looking ahead I see new tools like testcontainers [1] you can use in
maven and gradle builds for spinning up and disposing of databases,
servers, and other things for integration tests.
This looks like fertile ground for some work :)
[1] https://www.testcontainers.org/
Thanks,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org>.
(Originally posted to dev and I forgot to cc this list)
Hi Damjan,
On 10/28/20 12:21 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:14 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
>> I have a few questions:
>>
>> 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
>> provide vs.functionality?
>>
>> 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
>>
>> I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
>> contributors if we had a place to work from.
>> Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
>>
>> I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
>>
>>
> Hi Carl
>
> Thank you for helping with the tests.
>
> I wrote a good email summarizing the different tests we have some years
> ago, please see
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb1851b82ba009d2cefdf5af9997099b6fdfb04bddac3753172f2698%401459253891%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
> Some things changed since then, eg. the smoketest location moved.
> There are
> a few other emails too, search for them.
>
> I also did some test fixes to bvt/fvt and others at various times. This
> year I learned quite a lot about them. For example many tests fail because
> they expect features that the .DOC file format cannot provide (such as
> strikeout styles unique to .ODT), there were timeouts, registry
> modifications had to be enabled to fix a test, confirmation dialogs that
> hang the tests, a 2048 byte limit in FreeBSD's "ps" was causing a pid
> lookup to fail, java.util.Calendar was being used incorrectly, etc. I
> fixed
> some of these, but others remain. Understanding why the .DOC tests fail
> requires understanding the .DOC file format, so fixing those tests isn't
> easy. Look through the Git log, I wrote pretty descriptive commit
> messages.
>
> One thing I didn't mention in that email is the thousands of unused tests
> we have in main/qadevOOo, but they seem difficult to set up, and use a
> custom test framework, not JUnit. They have a complex architecture, with
> some code implementing UNO components and some code testing them. There
> might even be code missing for some of them. There's a mixture of Java and
> StarBasic tests there, with much duplication - were they first written in
> one language then semi-ported to another?
>
> Anyway I can't help much at the moment, but good luck and let us know how
> it goes.
>
> Damjan
>
Thanks for the great information and the email link.
I saw some of commits on some of the flaky tests where you added a sleep
before checking the results.
I think there are more of these but I was holding off thinking it would
be low hanging fruit for a new volunteer :)
But I'll take care if it if not.
I liked Patricia's suggestion of a page for this work. I'll try to find
if one was started and if not start one.
I'll look into testing the OOO_SUBSEQUENT_TESTS flag also.
It seems building the bvt/fvt tests using ant require an office to have
been built and use idlc and the uno jars from solver like:
test/smoketestdoc.build.xml imports main/ant.properties which includes
OUTDIR=<my-path-to-source>/openoffice/main/solver/450/unxlngx6.pro
OUTDIR is used in the path to idlc and the build fails if I've cleaned
the office build.
I think it would be good if we could use idlc and uno jars from
whichever office is under test so you don't need a build environment
necessarily but I'm still looking at the implications of that.
Please let me know if you have an opinion on that since you've dug a lot
deeper.
Looking ahead I see new tools like testcontainers [1] you can use in
maven and gradle builds for spinning up and disposing of databases,
servers, and other things for integration tests.
This looks like fertile ground for some work :)
[1] https://www.testcontainers.org/
Thanks,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:14 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
> I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
> provide vs.functionality?
>
> 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
>
> I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
> contributors if we had a place to work from.
> Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
>
> I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
>
>
Hi Carl
Thank you for helping with the tests.
I wrote a good email summarizing the different tests we have some years
ago, please see
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb1851b82ba009d2cefdf5af9997099b6fdfb04bddac3753172f2698%401459253891%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
Some things changed since then, eg. the smoketest location moved. There are
a few other emails too, search for them.
I also did some test fixes to bvt/fvt and others at various times. This
year I learned quite a lot about them. For example many tests fail because
they expect features that the .DOC file format cannot provide (such as
strikeout styles unique to .ODT), there were timeouts, registry
modifications had to be enabled to fix a test, confirmation dialogs that
hang the tests, a 2048 byte limit in FreeBSD's "ps" was causing a pid
lookup to fail, java.util.Calendar was being used incorrectly, etc. I fixed
some of these, but others remain. Understanding why the .DOC tests fail
requires understanding the .DOC file format, so fixing those tests isn't
easy. Look through the Git log, I wrote pretty descriptive commit messages.
One thing I didn't mention in that email is the thousands of unused tests
we have in main/qadevOOo, but they seem difficult to set up, and use a
custom test framework, not JUnit. They have a complex architecture, with
some code implementing UNO components and some code testing them. There
might even be code missing for some of them. There's a mixture of Java and
StarBasic tests there, with much duplication - were they first written in
one language then semi-ported to another?
Anyway I can't help much at the moment, but good luck and let us know how
it goes.
Damjan
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:14 PM Carl Marcum <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
> I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
> provide vs.functionality?
>
> 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
>
> I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
> contributors if we had a place to work from.
> Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
>
> I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
>
>
Hi Carl
Thank you for helping with the tests.
I wrote a good email summarizing the different tests we have some years
ago, please see
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb1851b82ba009d2cefdf5af9997099b6fdfb04bddac3753172f2698%401459253891%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E
Some things changed since then, eg. the smoketest location moved. There are
a few other emails too, search for them.
I also did some test fixes to bvt/fvt and others at various times. This
year I learned quite a lot about them. For example many tests fail because
they expect features that the .DOC file format cannot provide (such as
strikeout styles unique to .ODT), there were timeouts, registry
modifications had to be enabled to fix a test, confirmation dialogs that
hang the tests, a 2048 byte limit in FreeBSD's "ps" was causing a pid
lookup to fail, java.util.Calendar was being used incorrectly, etc. I fixed
some of these, but others remain. Understanding why the .DOC tests fail
requires understanding the .DOC file format, so fixing those tests isn't
easy. Look through the Git log, I wrote pretty descriptive commit messages.
One thing I didn't mention in that email is the thousands of unused tests
we have in main/qadevOOo, but they seem difficult to set up, and use a
custom test framework, not JUnit. They have a complex architecture, with
some code implementing UNO components and some code testing them. There
might even be code missing for some of them. There's a mixture of Java and
StarBasic tests there, with much duplication - were they first written in
one language then semi-ported to another?
Anyway I can't help much at the moment, but good luck and let us know how
it goes.
Damjan
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Pedro Lino <pe...@gmail.com>.
+1
OpenOffice 4 Excellence ;)
Regards,
Pedro
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 9:24 PM Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>
wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> a big +1 for automated tests.
>
> I know that there are some, but never executed them myself.
> So I am willing to learn and help to improve our QA.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthias
>
> Am 24.10.20 um 20:13 schrieb Carl Marcum:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
> > I have a few questions:
> >
> > 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
> > provide vs.functionality?
> >
> > 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
> >
> > I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
> > contributors if we had a place to work from.
> > Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
> >
> > I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
> >
> > Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I
> > don't think we use anymore and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
> > But this list seems to describe the automated tests. At least some
> > that I've looked at.
> > Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
> > Management is also a 404.
> >
> > [1] https://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-qa.html
> > [2] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
> > [3] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Carl
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Carl,
a big +1 for automated tests.
I know that there are some, but never executed them myself.
So I am willing to learn and help to improve our QA.
Regards,
Matthias
Am 24.10.20 um 20:13 schrieb Carl Marcum:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
> I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
> provide vs.functionality?
>
> 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
>
> I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
> contributors if we had a place to work from.
> Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
>
> I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
>
> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I
> don't think we use anymore and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
> But this list seems to describe the automated tests. At least some
> that I've looked at.
> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
> Management is also a 404.
>
> [1] https://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-qa.html
> [2] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
> [3] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
>
> Best regards,
> Carl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: QA Automated Test coverage
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 24/10/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:
> Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I don't think we use anymore
Well, it looks like Adfinis decided to kill it. That was set up in the
recent era (Apache), so it should serve as a lesson: Adfinis contributed
a server, got Google rank thanks to our prominent links and then moved
away with our data. At least, all references to the Adfinis link should
be removed.
> and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
No, that was the manual. Tests were meant to be on Testlink, or at least
I cannot find them in the wiki.
> Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
> Management is also a 404.
This is indeed obsolete. TCM is from the pre-Apache era, it was hosted
by Oracle and, despite numerous requests done by myself and others
around 2012, Oracle refused to contribute test cases to the ASF due to
their unclear licensing and copyright. So all references to TCM are
obsolete and there is no hope to get TCM testcases back, unfortunately:
they provided very good coverage and helped building a QA community.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org