Hi,
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:33:23PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
Constructive thoughts appreciated in reply here.
This has some synergies with the dashboard proposal[1] but it is sufficiently
distict to be included as an ideas on its own:
We lack a good representation of test status. tinderbox.libreoffice.org is only
very basic and overloads one view trying to show way too much at one:
- e.g. http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html shows:
- when something broke
- where (on which machine) something broke
(which is already creates a ~useless table a fullscreen wide on
my 30" 21:9 screen at default zoom levels -- quite an "achievement")
however it doesnt show:
- _what_ (which test or module) broke
The "what" is the most important information for a developer checking if he
broke something, followed by the "when", while the "on which machine" is
less relevant in most cases.
If we really want to value tests we should be able to present a view on our
automated testing that shows what broke first -- and then allows ivestigating
the when and where from there. Take the "Test Statistics Grid" at the end of:
https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/vivid/view/AutoPkgTest/
as an starting point, showing e.g. the status and the stability of each and every
CppunitTest_ JunitTest_ and PythonTest_ individually.
Best,
Bjoern
[1]
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/TDF-Grant-Request-Proposal-LibreOffice-project-dashboard-quot-All-about-LibreOffice-quot-td4151652.html
Context
- Re: regular lcov reports (was: test infrastructure ideas appreciated ...) (continued)
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.