Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi all,

I top post for an update on the topic.
So thanks to Christoph I'm now in contact with Matt Evans who is director of QA at Mozilla. He kindly offers to answer any questions we could have on Litmus or any other things they do at Mozilla QA. He also informs me that the new tool which will replace Litmus is at its beginning stage and won't be ready before some time. It will be announced to the public in a couple of weeks. I'll propose him that we follow and help the development by providing feedback and inputs on the features, so if you are interested by that just tell me I'll add you in the loop. I find it important for us that we are not alone to support the tools we use.

So I think we should go on with Litmus *now*. It seems that the error has vanished (good news :) so we may extend the tests and the languages and see how it runs for us?
David are we ready to change from staging to [extensive ;)] general use?
Rimas have you any concerns about this?
Others are you ready to go?

Thanks in advance
Kind regards
On 17/02/2011 23:14, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
Hello all,

2011.02.17 19:45, Volker Heggemann rašė:

Am 17.02.2011 14:17, schrieb Rimas Kudelis:
One thing to note though: Mozilla's guys told me
Litmus is no longer being developed (except bugfixes). They're
developing a replacement for it at the moment, so Litmus is
apparently pretty much in a dead-end. We'd have to maintain it
What about this replacement? Can we take a look at this? Or is this
new TCM-Software specially for Mozilla-Software?

As far as I remember, it's being developed, and is not yet ready for
production use. But here are the links:

First of all, what still needs to be done is undef errors fixed. :)
With an error in one of Litmus Pages it is hard to say something about
quality or useability.

I was actually able to run the tests until somebody set up the test runs :)

I have a few more ideas for afterwards though:
1) the build id field and checks should be adapted for our use. It
looks like Jean-Baptiste has already come up with a workaround for
this, but it should be fixed instead of worked around.
2) testcase localization implemented correctly. I absolutely dislike
the way it's done now. To the extent that I want to revoke admin
rights from everyone but me. :)
3) platform/language autodetection (it looks like the criteria
fields are there, but they aren't being used)
As far as I see the software at it's stand, i found i useable. Pretty
much easier as typing everything in a wiki-site. And it looks better
then the old TCM-Tool, "It feels better".

It certainly does.

I don't know if we need an infrastructure fist? This few people,
national and international may could do communication via cc-mailings.
I guess, if we get a testcasetool - useable by many people - then we
can build lists an so on...

The infrastructure list was just an idea. Again, I just think that what
we're discussing here isn't of interest to most of the guys on the
websites list.

The amazing thing with the Litmus site is, that it is possible to
login, select my Operating System, Software Version, Language and then
I can start with testing, if it fail or run, i check a marker - ready.
Thats simple.


Don't forget, we need a place to store demofiles so our testcases can
reference to that. (e.g. How could a Linux Tester get some M$-Files.
It's better to show a PNG-File how one document should look like)

Good point. I think the example files could be stored in our wiki, or
even simply zipped and uploaded to the litmus directory. They aren't
likely to change too often, after all... Litmus doesn't have that
functionality built in, but this problem is easy to solve, and there's a
bunch of ways to solve it.


Founding member of The Document Foundation

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.