Jonathan Lundell | 1 Nov 19:56 2010

Re: Re: web2py 1.88.1 is OUT

On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> I think this is a good idea.

Me too. 

I rather expect, though, that it will be necessary, and perhaps desirable regardless, for this to be a suite
of applications rather than a single app.

> On Nov 1, 7:24 am, Martín Mulone <mulone.mar...@...> wrote:
>> I'm going to start an w2p-app, called app by an example or testing app. The
>> idea is to have in one app some code for testing pourpose, that make for
>> example insert,select,delete like the code in the bottom of What do
>> you think?.
>> 2010/10/30 rochacbruno <rochacbr...@...>
>>> At my company we started to use this
>>> Integrated with hg
>>> I suggest to start using this integrated with the main web2py repository.
>>> Enviado via iPhone
>>> Em 30/10/2010, às 21:33, mart <msenecal...@...> escreveu:
>>>> BTW - have you seen Mondrian? - is built on Perforce.
>>>> Mart
>>>> On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, mart <msenecal...@...> wrote:
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>> Would it make sense not to pull the apps that get built against #head
>>>>> revision (unless the goal is to test the apps themselves) and
>>>>> preferably just pull the code line it self  <at>  #head revision? (follow
>>>>> up on this in next paragraph) And also, I don't know where things
>>>>> stand wrt bug tracking, but an important consideration are the bug
>>>>> fixes ("does this build contain the fix for Bug X?"). Typically when
>>>>> bugs get resolved/closed, they get verified on a clean slate, then
>>>>> once validated & blessed (or rejected), the fix can be made public.
>>>>> I think the process is pretty close to what Thadeus mentioned, but
>>>>> would add the integration to bug tracking (this data is usually made
>>>>> part of the release notes specifically instead of a description typed
>>>>> in  <at>  commit time). if the desire is automation (smoke tests) that I
>>>>> would store the raw data of the "generic app" in some dedicated
>>>>> tables, then re-populate the all-encompassing app with current data.
>>>>> By always grabbing latest_row, you keep the previous data for the
>>>>> previous build/release intact and in the correct place (so you don't
>>>>> need to change the test process from release to release, and you have
>>>>> the the build process insert a new set of records  <at>  build time
>>>>> referencing the current build. With this, you also have
>>>>> reproducibility if needed.
>>>>> Last point, and I know I am persistently annoying with this, but
>>>>> mercurial, IMHO, sucks, sucks a lot. Personally I would use nothing
>>>>> less then the best out there, Perforce, specially if considering
>>>>> automated testing (again IMHO, but at least a fairly well supported
>>>>> statement :)). web2py is Open source, Perforce does give additional
>>>>> user licenses to open source projects (I'm sure Massimo would only
>>>>> need to make the request (which is online  <at>  perforce .com btw). I
>>>>> mention that here because, good testing processes should be well
>>>>> integrated to source control. and for the web2py user, offering time
>>>>> for testing, a local instance of the perforce server can be installed,
>>>>> absolutely free of charge (with a max of 2 user licenses per server -
>>>>> more than enough for "remote workers" who can very easily keep in sync
>>>>> with the "main web2py" server (I work from home (Quebec, Canada), work
>>>>> for an American based company (HQ in Sunnyvale) - and that is how I do
>>>>> my work, with my local p4D. works like a charm). Anyways, enough of
>>>>> that, just thought I'd find another reason to slide that in ;)
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Mart :)
>>>>> On Oct 30, 2:58 pm, Luther Goh Lu Feng <elf...@...> wrote:
>>>>>> It is reasonable to suggest a universal test app that will assist in
>>>>>> the quality assurance of web2py. But I wonder if this will always have
>>>>>> 100% test coverage, given that bugs may appear even when writing test
>>>>>> cases. This is still a good idea compared to not having a test suite.
>>>>>> However, I think I would have a greater sense of security if I am able
>>>>>> to test the apps I have written against the nightly/trunk build.
>>>>>> On Oct 31, 1:46 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where should the list of apps come from? I think this is the biggest
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thadeus
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Thadeus Burgess <
>>> thade...@...>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Someone writes a script to automate the process. Have a list of apps
>>> that
>>>>>>>> we want to be sure are tested and working. The script will download
>>> web2py
>>>>>>>> testing, copy the apps to the downloaded version, fire a process fork
>>> to
>>>>>>>> start that web2py, use urllib or httplib to navigate to each of the
>>> apps
>>>>>>>> pages to verify that things are working. If a response code of 500 is
>>> ever
>>>>>>>> received then go get the error ticket and store it somewhere central
>>>>>>>> including which app it came from.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thadeus
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Luther Goh Lu Feng <
>>> elf...@...>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 30, 7:05 am, mdipierro <mdipie...@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Normally it goes to the nightly build, perhaps not exactly the
>>> latest
>>>>>>>>>> but something very close. The bug in question has been there for
>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> one week. The problem is that nobody tests the nightly build.
>>>>>>>>>> Massimo
>>>>>>>>> I would love to have a way to test non stable builds easily with my
>>>>>>>>> existing apps. How does one do so besides downloading the trunk/
>>>>>>>>> nightly build, and then exporting the apps from stable web2py and
>>> then
>>>>>>>>> import to the trunk/nightly web2py?
>> --
>> My blog:
>> My portfolio *spanish*:
>> Checkout my last proyect instant-press: