Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last


On 03/24/2018 10:57 AM, Andreas Mantke wrote:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Main_Page/Extension-Templates-Website

You could write your test result with 'yes' or 'no' into the free cells
for each extension. If you have any comments about issues with the test,
please add them in this cells.

I) Using _BibleGet I/O - 2.7_ as an example:
LibreOffice Version: 6.0.1.1 (Build ID:
60bfb1526849283ce2491346ed2aa51c465abfe6 ) installing it generates the
error message: «java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException».

Would you want that in the "No" column, or placed elsewhere, or simply
omitted.

II) Based on my sporadic testing of extensions over the years, a simple
yes/no is insufficient:
* Some extensions are platform specific;
* Some extensions, despite claims of being platform specific, will not
run on a specific platform. (I've forgotten which extension runs on
Debian, but not Red Hat, or maybe it is vice versus.);
* Extensions that work on version X.0.0, may not work with X.0.1;

III) Test Suites: For the last five or so years, I've spent a week or so
each year, installing every LibO, AOo, EO, and OOP extension I can get
my hands on, for the sole purpose of seeing what still installs, and
what appears to still function as advertised. However, I have a test
suite for maybe as maybe as twenty extensions. Are there publicly
available test suites for _any_ of these extensions?

IV) How does one test something like _LeeNo_. Just because it installs,
does not mean it does what it claims to do.

V) "Obsolete" versions of the extension:  Taking _American British
Canadian Dictionary_ as an example, the version LibO offers was released
in 2012, whilst the most recent version was released in December 2017.
How should things like that be notated?


Ich werde später die LibreOffice-Extensions-Templates-Webseite
entsprechend für die getesteten Extensions auf den aktuellen Stand bringen.

This is a worthy aim, and much easier to start now, than later;

My estimate is that at least a quarter of the templates lack the
documentation to know whether or not they function as described.
Would a user even know that the template was "broken"?
By way of example, The Wittlich Character Diagram template incorrectly
calculates the thirteenth spoke. (Fixed in version 9.0, but that hasn't
yet been released.)

jonathon

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: projects+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/projects/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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.