[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-devel
Subject: Re: Upstream bugs... (Qt)
From: Alexis_Ménard <menard () kde ! org>
Date: 2009-11-26 17:12:38
Message-ID: 81941aea0911260912h3ff41bcbu276ddcdc5ce24a95 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Dmitry Suzdalev <dimsuzkde@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thursday 26 November 2009 18:35:23 John Tapsell wrote:
> > Whoever writes the test case of course :-)
> By the way is the minimal test case really required?
>
It's not mandatory, but it is good for Qt Developers. It's more efficient,
we don't have to checkout the part of KDE (mess up our dev machine with
development version of KDE) that we need to reproduce and fix the bug. Most
important is Qt Devs that don't have KDE/Linux, they can't help without test
case, they don't have a proper KDE set up.
>
> I'm asking because there are times when i'm say 70% sure that this is a Qt
> bug, but writing a minimal testcase is not always that trivial and/or takes
> a
> lot of time to reproduce the same conditions with minimal example.
>
I know but it helps us to prioritize/fix/integrate in our auto-test suite.
It took me one/two days to isolate and reproduce outside plasma the bug i
was giving as example (test case + fix + review).
> And sometimes I simply don't have time/abilities to write it => so i don't
> file a bug report.
>
>
Write it anyway with the step to reproduce.
> So the question is: how acceptable is to file a report w/o minimal example,
> but with good description? So some person at Nokia tries to reproduce this
> and
> takes care of writing a testcase.
>
>
We prefer test case of course.
> Please note, that I'm not arguing against submitting bugs with minimal
> pure-qt
> testcases, in fact i think this is a way to go in most situations.
> But sometimes that's not possible, so I'm asking if it's acceptable to
> submit
> Qt bugs without C++ testcases (like bug reports for KDE) or will these bugs
> be
> rejected?
>
>
We won't reject but since we have to investigate by ourself in the KDE code
to figure out how Qt is used you will have to wait more (see the first part
of the mail).
> Cheers,
> Dmitry.
>
> >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> unsubscribe <<
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Dmitry Suzdalev \
<span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:dimsuzkde@gmail.com">dimsuzkde@gmail.com</a>></span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="im">On Thursday 26 November 2009 18:35:23 \
John Tapsell wrote:<br> > Whoever writes the test case of course :-)<br>
</div>By the way is the minimal test case really \
required?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's not mandatory, but it is good \
for Qt Developers. It's more efficient, we don't have to checkout the part of \
KDE (mess up our dev machine with development version of KDE) that we need to \
reproduce and fix the bug. Most important is Qt Devs that don't have KDE/Linux, \
they can't help without test case, they don't have a proper KDE set up.</div> \
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <br>
I'm asking because there are times when i'm say 70% sure that this is a \
Qt<br> bug, but writing a minimal testcase is not always that trivial and/or takes \
a<br> lot of time to reproduce the same conditions with minimal \
example.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I know but it helps us to \
prioritize/fix/integrate in our auto-test suite. It took me one/two days to isolate \
and reproduce outside plasma the bug i was giving as example (test case + fix + \
review).</div> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> And sometimes I simply don't \
have time/abilities to write it => so i don't<br> file a bug report.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Write it anyway with the step to \
reproduce.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> So the question is: how \
acceptable is to file a report w/o minimal example,<br> but with good description? So \
some person at Nokia tries to reproduce this and<br> takes care of writing a \
testcase.<br> <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We prefer test case of \
course.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Please note, that I'm not \
arguing against submitting bugs with minimal pure-qt<br> testcases, in fact i think \
this is a way to go in most situations.<br> But sometimes that's not possible, so \
I'm asking if it's acceptable to submit<br> Qt bugs without C++ testcases \
(like bug reports for KDE) or will these bugs be<br> rejected?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We won't reject but since we have to \
investigate by ourself in the KDE code to figure out how Qt is used you will have to \
wait more (see the first part of the mail).</div><div> </div> <blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Cheers,<br>
<font color="#888888">Dmitry.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
>> Visit <a href="http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub" \
target="_blank">http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub</a> to \
unsubscribe <<<br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br>
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic