[Framework-Team] WebDAV changes, tests and process improvements

[Graham Perrin]

Below:

  * reflection
  * guesswork (correct me, please!)
  * related suggestions for improvement to the Framework Team process.

On 27 Feb 2008, at 01:00, Sidnei da Silva wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Andreas Zeidler <az at zitc.de> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2008, at 5:30 PM, George Lee wrote:
>>
>> imho, yes.  the fact that two additional packages are introduced  
>> by the PLIP should have been pointed out, along with additional  
>> review notes about them, or at least a note whether they have been  
>> reviewed or not...
>
> It should have been pretty obvious, the review buildout had a  
> 'parts/review' part with the changed or new products inside it, and  
> only them.

I did see the five URLs under [review] at
<http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/dreamcatcher-plip187/ 
buildout.cfg>
but when I first read
<http://awkly.org/2007/12/24/preparing-plip-187-for-review/> I was  
busy enough learning buildout in general, to wonder about the meaning  
and nature of 'test' and 'review' in relation to a PLIP or a 'bundle'.

With this lack of general knowledge, I didn't (don't) know whether:

  a) there are _dependencies_ between (i) WebDAV, (ii) Calendaring  
and (iii) Lime

or

  b) there are no dependencies, but there _is_ a _wish_ for (ii)  
Calendaring and (iii) Lime to be reviewed _coincidental_ to (i)  
proposed WebDAV-related improvements to Plone.

No mention of Calendaring or Lime at <http://plone.org/products/plone/ 
roadmap> so I _guess_ that whatever the need/wish to review  
Calendaring and Lime, these two:

  * remain in the collective
  * are not intended for Plone core
  * are not associated with the timeline for Plone 3.1.

=================================================
Preparing for further tests (and a plea for help)
=================================================

On 27 Feb 2008, at 05:27, Alexander Limi wrote:

> tests will never be a substitute for testing the code in actual  
> use. :)

Good news, I think ... as in recent weeks I have integrated the  
[review] aspect of Sidnei's buildout.cfg within the vast majority of  
my own buildouts (preparing for upgrades to production service), so:

  * the presence of that code has been *often* tested alongside the  
presence of various add-on products.

I didn't catch the front page issue, but whilst troubleshooting some  
other issue (I can't recall what) someone did ask me why Calendaring  
was present.

I did find some WebDAV related issues (all in Trac) but I wasn't sure  
whether the issues were additionally relative to a PLIP/bundle review.

In retrospect, there were many additional opportunities for me to  
test the codes -- both with and without zopectl.

Help!
-----

I discovered testing, only briefly, at the Zope/Plone day, the  
presentation archived at <http://www.plone4universities.org/Members/ 
cmetc/ukheploneday-12-feb-2008/testing.html>.

Since then I'm reading the tutorial, <http://plone.org/documentation/ 
tutorial/testing>. Whilst I'm OK with basics such as

bin/instance test
bin/instance test --help

-- I have *not* managed to run targeted/discrete tests (as you might  
guess, I find thousands of tests running).

I see testWebDAV.py at <http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/CMFPlone/ 
branches/3.1/tests/testWebDAV.py>, should I do something with this?

I am cc'd at
<http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7732>
  * bundle review for PLIP #187
<http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7871>
  * Create a comprehensive suite of browser tests

and if anyone would like to walk me through the command (line), to  
run tests that are specific to the WebDAV PLIP, I'll be lurking in  
<irc://irc.freenode.net/#plone>.

===================================
Framework Team process improvements
===================================

I suppose:

  * team definition of 'PLIP'
  * team definition of the generic expression 'PLIP bundle'
  * distinguish between the two
  * team definition of 'review' in the context of PLIP and bundle

  * for each PLIP, tips from the author/proposer/seconder
    * ".. test this and that ... watch for the other ..." etc.
  * for each bundle, tips from the submitter(s) of the bundle
    * as above.

Much of that exists, surely, but honestly it was not blindingly  
obvious when I was first introduced to the PLIP concept ... probably  
because framework-team at lists.plone.org is obscure and its default  
archive not searchable.

<http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7816> looking very good :)

Thanks
Graham