Testing SWORD 1.7.0RC#

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Testing SWORD 1.7.0RC#

David Haslam
The current focus is all on whether the engine can be recompiled in different platforms, each with its own idiosyncrasies. That's natural at this stage. Most of the developers are responding in like manner.

I''m rather more concerned with module development, and how this fares after the software release.

Unless the testing phase of the release candidate includes checking whether a module built with the SWORD utility (e.g. osis2mod) from the same software build, and is then tested as a module in a front-end that has been recompiled with the release candidate of the SWORD engine, how can anyone be confident that the software is ready to be released?

And how many features does such a module need to have to create such confidence?

Does anyone disagree with this as being a sensible requirement?

Best regards,

David



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Testing SWORD 1.7.0RC#

Greg Hellings



On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM, David Haslam <[hidden email]> wrote:
The current focus is all on whether the engine can be recompiled in different
platforms, each with its own idiosyncrasies. That's natural at this stage.
Most of the developers are responding in like manner.

I''m rather more concerned with module development, and how this fares after
the software release.

Unless the testing phase of the release candidate includes checking whether
a module built with the SWORD utility (e.g. osis2mod) from the same software
build, and is then tested as a module in a front-end that has been
recompiled with the release candidate of the SWORD engine, how can anyone be
confident that the software is ready to be released?

As a module creator, you are welcome to test that. Troy has been slowly growing a testsuite of issues when regressions appear and corner cases crop up that he can run automatically. That doesn't help for any particular front-end, but if the engine is still producing what we all have agreed is correct, then any regressions as such would be issues that the frontend needs to update.

--Greg
 

And how many features does such a module need to have to create such
confidence?

Does anyone disagree with this as being a sensible requirement?

Best regards,

David







--
View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Testing-SWORD-1-7-0RC-tp4652997.html
Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: [hidden email]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page


_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: [hidden email]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Testing SWORD 1.7.0RC#

David Haslam
Greg,

If I were a person who also compiles a front-end, then your suggestion might make more sense.
This is not the case - so I can't be the agent to take on this aspect of the testing.

I can merely report what I observe with module utilities (compiled for Windows) that match SWORD version 1.7.0RC2 or later.

Should "leap-frogging" of milestone div elements be allowed?
It seems rather odd to me that there was such an overlap.

Best regards,

David