Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting minutes: 2020-03-05

[rene.engelhard@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Am 10. März 2020 10:25:50 MEZ schrieb Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>On 06/03/2020 16:31, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>> And i think https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/88833 should then
>be
>> done, too, as it makes it more clear (what is a "subsequentcheck"?)
>and
>> would be a good rationale to rename
>>
>https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libreoffice-subsequentcheckbase
>> to something sane (that one is used for in the autopkgtests which run
>> the junit tests against a installed (in /usr/lib/libreoffice) LO)
>
>I'm not sure I understand you.  subsequentcheck is orthongonal to 
>JUnitTest.  There are JUnitTests that are not in subsequentcheck, and 
>there are tests other than JUnitTests that are in subsequentcheck.

The OOoRunner tests, yes. Otherwise: no.

make subsequentcheck does only run java tests: cf. https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice/-/blob/master/tests/junit. That one results in https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/libr/libreoffice/4506235/log.gz +search for the junit test.)

>But then again, the distinction between unitcheck and subsequentcheck 
>continued to look somewhat useful, to have a default make target that 
>runs some but not all of the tests.  Now that that odd default make 
>target is going away, it should indeed become possible to drop the 
>distinction between unitcheck and subsequentcheck.)

Please not, as the unit tests can't be ran against an installed office as quite easy as the subsequentcheck tests (https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice/-/blob/master/tests/patches/java-subsequentcheck-standalone.diff and the file mentioned above)

Regards

Rene


-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice