I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending my response now. On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > comments are in the text: > > On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > 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. > I agree with Stephen - such topics can be really subjective and even the > fault does not have to be on Fedora side (f.e. when you catch the file > which goes to the printer, you look into it and it looks fine, but > output paper has 'slightly' different colors, scale etc... - so there > can be issues in the printer itself). > > > >> 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. > > IMHO it is not correct blocker criteria for printing as itself, but it > is more like blocker for these applications. AFAIK blocker is the issue, > which can not be worked around - if the file is printable by CUPS CLI > commands 'lp'/'lpr', but not from a app, IMHO it is not blocker for > printing. > > IMO issues like 'not being able to print from X application' should be > blocking/release criteria for some common/widely used apps like > Firefox/evince/libreoffice, not for printing itself. (If the issue would > be actually connected to CUPS, I'll cooperate with them to fix the issue). > Well, we don't have to be that specific in the release criteria, honestly. We're talking about blocker criteria specifically for blocking desktops, so in my opinion it's okay to have "test page" and "basic text editor" as the stand-ins for this. (This is similar to how we have "package manager must be able to download and apply updates" as a stand-in for "the network must not be totally broken".) I'd be fine if we wanted to add a corollary that either of these are not blockers if it can be shown that other applications can print successfully. I just wanted to suggest those as the basic litmus test. > > > >> 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 > > Chris, would you mind elaborating more on the topic of these test files > and tests from these sources? Martin (mosvald in CC) currently does only > comparing sample file and output file in ghostscript and I'm on my way > to do it the similar way in CUPS and printer driver packages. > > Do they have special tests available to look into them? I saw mostly > only pdf file in ECI downloads, I did not see anything in GWG and only > docx or xlsx files in libreoffice tests. > <snip> I'm going to suggest that going into this level of detail on how to write the tests is mostly going to cloud the issue. I think we first want to make sure we agree that the basics of the proposal are sound. I'm perfectly happy to delegate the specifics of how to verify the functionality to the subject matter experts. I'll update the proposal again with some of the feedback: * 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 non-ridiculous differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working". In general, we'll apply the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" principle here when deciding whether a print glitch is truly blocking.) and this to Final for Fedora 30+: * Printing must work (as defined above) on at least one printer using each of the following drivers: - The built-in print-to-PDF driver - The generic IPP driver * For each blocking desktop, it must be possible to print: - A test page from the desktop environment's built-in "test page" feature, if such a feature exists. - A simple text document of at least 100 words (lorem ipsum) from the standard basic text editor accompanying that desktop. 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). We won't specify any particular hardware makes or models that must work. _______________________________________________ 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
