On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the bugs could be split into two categories of
100% reproducible and not, and script the 100% reproducers and
automatically re-run the script on each milestone to see which ones got
fixed in passing. Though I guess in practice that would depend on
reliable gui automation in a lot of cases.
Hmm, I kinda like that. Just wondering: Maybe we should have an EasyHack to
write tests for these regressions? At least some of those should be possible to
recreate in good test code. For one, this would give us relevant information:
1/ Is this regression really still around on master
2/ Should allow full-auto bibisect to the commit introducing the trouble
3/ Is this a Heisenbug? Does it happen on all platform? etc.
And fianlly: We will have a test in the end even after this is fixed. After
all, we all know that the motivation to write a test drops even harder once
there is a fix as "this is not a problem anymore".
Best,
Bjoern
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.