Well Alex and I tried with Infrastructure. Two points.
(1) There are 30,000 jira issues in the import. That is a lot of history of
closed issues.
(2) Infrastructure is currently working with Atlassian on the import issue.
A little more patience ... please.
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:
>Yeah maybe. Are you committing to doing documentation and support? Because
>if I do get the steps out there sooner, I don't want to be distracted by
>answering questions.
Yes, that was my plan. I would also work on the integration within the FlexUnit
build and test process so we could have a
On 3/13/12 7:10 PM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
> Just thinking it would give people a way to start writing tests in this
> supported way so that we are getting coverage on new code. I might put this on
> my plate.
Yeah maybe. Are you committing to doing documentation and support? Because
i
>Many folks want to see all the mustella tests in before making changes to the
>SDK which is another reason why I've been trying to do it in all one shot.
Just thinking it would give people a way to start writing tests in this
supported way so that we are getting coverage on new code. I might pu
On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> The tool currently pulls one Adobe issue and creates a new issue in the
> destination instance, then goes on to the next. I could slow it down if we
> have to.
Ask Infrastructure what rate is too fast, or if there are times when you should
stop.
On 3/13/12 11:52 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>> The real #2 has a bunch of optional parameters and doesn't rely on
>> flashlog.txt
>
> Just wondering if the fake #2 still gets us started for now.
Well, there really isn't anything in a fake #2. It is just a matter of
compiling an MXML fi
The tool currently pulls one Adobe issue and creates a new issue in the
destination instance, then goes on to the next. I could slow it down if we
have to.
On 3/13/12 4:12 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/13/12 1:13 PM, "Carol
On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/13/12 1:13 PM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>
>> I know Alex considered this option several weeks ago. I believe he was
>> told by Apache infrastructure not to do this but he can correct me if I am
>> wrong.
>>
> I already have this to
On 14/03/2012 03:07, Michael A. Labriola wrote:
The AIR stuff has some of its own complexity too. Ideally we would like to test
things in Flash Player and in AIR, not just one or the othe
My thinking is following: Right now X images are compressed into &
decompressed from PNG. I assume the Flex
On 3/13/12 1:13 PM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
> I know Alex considered this option several weeks ago. I believe he was
> told by Apache infrastructure not to do this but he can correct me if I am
> wrong.
>
I already have this tool written. That's how I was able to convert from the
Adobe vers
I know Alex considered this option several weeks ago. I believe he was
told by Apache infrastructure not to do this but he can correct me if I am
wrong.
Carol
On 3/13/12 4 :05PM, "Omar Gonzalez" wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Carol Frampton
>wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >If you take
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Carol Frampton wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >If you take this road you could also argue that Apache is deliberately
> >delaying because we we're waiting long for the Jira import. And that is
> >of course ridiculous.
>
> Apache infrastructure ended up filing a support iss
>
>
>
>If you take this road you could also argue that Apache is deliberately
>delaying because we we're waiting long for the Jira import. And that is
>of course ridiculous.
Apache infrastructure ended up filing a support issue at Atlassian so they
are waiting for support from them. Our bug is
ht
On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:54 PM, JP Bader wrote:
> Every time we want a little progress, Adobe makes sure their "legal"
> has some more wrangling to do, so we fall a little further
> behind...Does anyone else sense that maybe Adobe is intentionally
> sabotaging any of our progress? That's just the
>The real #2 has a bunch of optional parameters and doesn't rely on flashlog.txt
Just wondering if the fake #2 still gets us started for now.
On 3/13/12 11:09 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>
>> 1) A SWC of test steps that are tags in MXML used to define the script.
>> 2) A Java engine that runs tests based on command line input
>
> Isn't some version of #1 and #2 in the check in tests?
#2 is not in the checkintests. The build.
>1) A SWC of test steps that are tags in MXML used to define the script.
>2) A Java engine that runs tests based on command line input
Isn't some version of #1 and #2 in the check in tests?
>Yeah, maybe someday we can rewrite the engine to use AIR instead of Java, but
>mustella was around long before ANEs.
The AIR stuff has some of its own complexity too. Ideally we would like to test
things in Flash Player and in AIR, not just one or the other.
On 3/13/12 10:52 AM, "Martin Heidegger" wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: It would be no problem to run a test in adl an
> capture the output there using a native extension, would it?
> I am not sure how the tests are built but making a screenshot is of a
> application is not "high science" and
On 14/03/2012 02:46, Alex Harui wrote:
Well, sarcastic or not, it is a good question.
Here's my latest thinking: There are several pieces to mustella.
1) A SWC of test steps that are tags in MXML used to define the script.
2) A Java engine that runs tests based on command line input
3) An htt
On 3/13/12 9:40 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>> Adobe probably won't go after folks who have legal copies of mustella.swc and
>> guess how it works and write and
> run tests on their computers, but I don't mustella.swc can get checked into
> Apache without Adobe's approval.
>
> Okay, so i
I concede, it's my own paranoia...
I am stoked, love Tink's and Justin's contributions, and look forward
to committing shortly.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Michael A. Labriola
wrote:
>>Every time we want a little progress, Adobe makes sure their "legal"
>>has some more wrangling to do, so
>Every time we want a little progress, Adobe makes sure their "legal"
>has some more wrangling to do, so we fall a little further behind...Does
>anyone else sense that maybe Adobe is intentionally sabotaging any of our
>progress? That's just the conspiracy-theorist in me...
Not with you there.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JP Bader wrote:
> Every time we want a little progress, Adobe makes sure their "legal"
> has some more wrangling to do, so we fall a little further
> behind...Does anyone else sense that maybe Adobe is intentionally
> sabotaging any of our progress? That's just t
On 13 March 2012 16:54, JP Bader
>
> behind...Does anyone else sense that maybe Adobe is intentionally
> sabotaging any of our progress? That's just the conspiracy-theorist
> in me...
>
>
Clearly conspiracy-theory. They are trying hard to get everything donated
and if you look in the archives, yo
Every time we want a little progress, Adobe makes sure their "legal"
has some more wrangling to do, so we fall a little further
behind...Does anyone else sense that maybe Adobe is intentionally
sabotaging any of our progress? That's just the conspiracy-theorist
in me...
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11
>Adobe probably won't go after folks who have legal copies of mustella.swc and
>guess how it works and write and
run tests on their computers, but I don't mustella.swc can get checked into
Apache without Adobe's approval.
Okay, so if I post a decompiled version of the SWC on github with comment
On 3/13/12 6:35 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> Let's just say I happen to have an older version of the source... If I was
> willing to support this on my own and deal with questions, do you have any
> problem with people writing tests against mustella. We cant write unit tests
>I think it is better to wait. Folks could probably play around on their own
>with the Adobe mustella.swc, but I don't want to take the time to deal with
>questions and doc and bugs right now.
Alex,
Let's just say I happen to have an older version of the source... If I was
willing to support
On 13/03/2012 08:16, Om wrote:
Is there an effort to start writing unit tests for the Flex SDK? I know
that the Mustella suite is coming, but I have heard calls for a real unit
test suite. I would love to contribute by writing as many unit tests as
possible for the existing SDK code. I realize
On 3/12/12 6:55 PM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
> Alex, am I wrong? Can we use mustella even without the Adobe test cases?
We have not checked any mustella into Apache. And I'm not seeing that there
is a mustella.swc in the Adobe Open Source SDK release. I think it is in
the not-fully-open
>Do we have any info on how to write and run Mustella tests? Do we have access
>to the framework smoke tests?
I don't think they are checked in yet, but if you were to grab the code from
Adobe's SVN, the framework smoke tests run as part of the check in target.
>I don't even know what one looks
Hi,
> the framework smoke tests worked on mustella. I mention this because the
> tests you list above are much better as mustella tests than as flexunit tests.
Do we have any info on how to write and run Mustella tests? Do we have access
to the framework smoke tests?
I don't even know what one
>I've been able to do some tests on the datagrid by fudging the focus manager a
>little. I've used it to test my own item renders/editors and modifications to
>the datagrids in the past. It may be useful for testing the >grid for
>submissions/patches. I have some code lying about that I can put
Hi,
> I am not trying to discourage anyone, just manage expectations. I promise
> pain and disappointment awaits if you decide to 'unit test' DataGrid.
I've been able to do some tests on the datagrid by fudging the focus manager a
little. I've used it to test my own item renders/editors and mod
>I am not a committer, so am wondering what would be the best way to go about
>starting this process? Anyone else interested? Michael ;-) ?
There are some places you can write unit tests in the SDK... however, and this
will remain the big problem for quite some time. Things are way too coupled
36 matches
Mail list logo
