On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this. > > > > I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta > > criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this > > comes off more favorable: > > > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+: > > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA. > > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview > > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in > > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".) > > Does the criterion pply strictly to the printing of text and line > art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the > latter: > > ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or > ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working" > > Major defined as any of: > obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%) > color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes > white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc) > tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two > or more test images > > With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level, > bugs as blockers. > I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this. > Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the > initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one > application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic > functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default > installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox > and evince? > How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and whichever basic text editor comes with it. > Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several > test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our > purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling > and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests > various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering. > Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't > gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as > a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out > entire test suites): > https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files > > The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs > in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are > familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick > back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the > bug?" etc. > > This sounds useful for automating the tests, but I think in general we don't need to write this into the criteria. They don't need to be that specific. > > > > > and this to Final for Fedora 30+: > > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the > > following drivers: > > - The built-in print-to-PDF driver > > - The generic IPP driver > > > > To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function > > properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we > > know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first > > proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models > > that must work. > > I agree with this. One possible sanity test: > > 1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the > built-in print to PDF driver) > 2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized > test file, to the designated IPP printer. > > i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on > scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria: > > a. PDF file is created from test document > b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer > c. PDF file is printed > d. Test document is printed > e. minor differences aside: b, c, and d should not cause a WTF > reaction by a human > That seems reasonable, though I'd rather have Master Wordsmith Adam Williamson phrase that better. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
