Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [fitnesse] aligning fitnesse instances

Expand Messages
  • Piergiuliano Bossi
    ... I don t really know if an SCM plugin, whatever SCM you choose, is the appropriate answer. In any case, what s wrong with having different plugins depending
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Micah Martin wrote:

      > In a previous wiki implementation we tied in RCS (CVS). Every page in
      > the wiki was added to the repository and every change was versioned.
      > It was great for us. However, it was difficult to configure and
      > involved some dependancies that weren't easily portable.
      >
      > We've considered many time to make a CvsWikiPage plugin for FitNesse.
      > But then we'll need a SubversionWikiPage, SourceSafeWikiPage, etc...


      I don't really know if an SCM plugin, whatever SCM you choose, is the
      appropriate answer. In any case, what's wrong with having different
      plugins depending on your favourite SCM?
      We are talking about 5 to 10 different plugins, while probably CVS &
      sourcesafe should be really enough to start.

      > Also the directory structure in FitNesse can make version control
      > difficult. Maybe all we need is a easy way to export a FitNesse
      > structure into an easily version-able format. Or maybe a new WikiPage
      > implementation that uses a flat file structure...


      Or maybe some sort of bidirectional merge inspired by Bob Cotton work.
      By the way, when are you planning to make another release which includes
      things like the remote-edit patch?
      Ciao
      Giuliano
    • Ryan Shriver
      ... Unfortunately, on the whole our customer team is more interested in the UI than FitNesse test pages. For them, the application working correctly (verified
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jun 30, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Piergiuliano Bossi wrote:
        >
        > I like it, they are really similar, and I think that the solution by
        > partitioning pages is an interesting one.
        > Main difference is that we don't have a separate QA team, while from
        > your description I don't understand clearly who is playing customer's
        > role, that is who is going to specify tests and give acceptance
        > /imprimatur/, if you know what I mean.
        >
        Unfortunately, on the whole our customer team is more interested in the
        UI than FitNesse test pages. For them, the application working
        correctly (verified through the UI) is their form of acceptance
        testing, not FitNesse. QA works with the customer team to identify the
        test scenarios and write them in FitNessse (not tables/fixtures, just
        the scenarios) ahead of the stories being developed. This work is done
        in "current", and then the QA team takes over and writes
        tables/fixtures and more scenarios.

        > You are suggesting me anyway that even CuF should be tightly connected
        > with CVS:
        >
        Yes. Our customer team uses WinCVS which is a pretty simple GUI tool
        for checking in / checking out from CVS. The QA and Dev teams use
        Eclipse / IDEA for the same tasks.

        > *) mr. Customer should not modify any "regression" page ==> if a
        > regression page needs to be modified in a way that causes a red bar I
        > guess that a new test under current area needs to be created,
        > eventually
        > managing the conflict with regression

        Yeah, customer's would work in the "current" or "bug" areas only, not
        regression. In your case with only customers and developers, then
        developers would move the tests to regression when the feature is
        stable and the customer agrees the tests are ok. Once in regression,
        the development team would be responsible for keeping it green.

        > *) when reviewing a user story mr. Customer can say that its tests are
        > ok, therefore implying a refactoring from current to regression (same
        > for bugs, they are typically transformed in stories in our projects,
        > luckily we have just a few)
        >
        > What do you think about it?

        I think you've got it. The main thing is to have simple but clear
        policies on your review and sign-off practices (including how/when
        tests move from one environment to another).

        -ryan


        > Giuliano
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Micah Martin
        ... I still have the remote-edit patches from Bob Cotton that I need to review and apply. That will be a nice addition to FitNesse. Although we re still
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Piergiuliano Bossi wrote:

          >Or maybe some sort of bidirectional merge inspired by Bob Cotton work.
          >By the way, when are you planning to make another release which includes
          >things like the remote-edit patch?
          >
          >
          I still have the remote-edit patches from Bob Cotton that I need to
          review and apply. That will be a nice addition to FitNesse. Although
          we're still making tiny changes to FitNesse from time to time... Object
          Mentor has become very busy and that means that, unfortunately, FitNesse
          has to take a back seat for a while. I don't anticipate any significant
          development on FitNesse for a few more months.

          Micah
        • Piergiuliano Bossi
          ... It sounds reasonable to me. ... I guess that people from your customer team are pretty technical, because my average customer would be not very happy to
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Ryan Shriver wrote:
            Unfortunately, on the whole our customer team is more interested in the 
            UI than FitNesse test pages. For them, the application working 
            correctly (verified through the UI) is their form of acceptance 
            testing, not FitNesse. QA works with the customer team to identify the 
            test scenarios and write them in FitNessse (not tables/fixtures, just 
            the scenarios) ahead of the stories being developed. This work is done 
            in "current", and then the QA team takes over and writes 
            tables/fixtures and more scenarios.
              

            It sounds reasonable to me.

            You are suggesting me anyway that even CuF should be tightly connected
            with CVS:
                
            Yes. Our customer team uses WinCVS which is a pretty simple GUI tool 
            for checking in / checking out from CVS. The QA and Dev teams use 
            Eclipse / IDEA for the same tasks.
              

            I guess that people from your customer team are pretty technical, because my average customer would be not very happy to use a tool like WinCVS. Another important point is that your customer seems to be internale, while in my case they are always people from another company.
            That doesn't change the whole point anyway: CuF should be tightly connected with CVS like any other F running in the environment. In our case the development team is in charge to update and merge CuF.

            Yeah, customer's would work in the "current" or "bug" areas only, not 
            regression. In your case with only customers and developers, then 
            developers would move the tests to regression when the feature is 
            stable and the customer agrees the tests are ok. Once in regression, 
            the development team would be responsible for keeping it green.
              

            Ok
            .
            I think you've got it. The main thing is to have simple but clear 
            policies on your review and sign-off practices (including how/when 
            tests move from one environment to another).
              

            Yes, thanks a lot for your time and your valuable feedback.
            Ciao
            Giuliano

          • Piergiuliano Bossi
            ... Oh, I understand. Does that mean that Bob s patch isn t committed in CVS HEAD yet? That would be interesting, even without releasing officially. I may grab
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Micah Martin wrote:

              >I still have the remote-edit patches from Bob Cotton that I need to
              >review and apply. That will be a nice addition to FitNesse. Although
              >we're still making tiny changes to FitNesse from time to time... Object
              >Mentor has become very busy and that means that, unfortunately, FitNesse
              >has to take a back seat for a while. I don't anticipate any significant
              >development on FitNesse for a few more months.
              >
              >

              Oh, I understand. Does that mean that Bob's patch isn't committed in CVS
              HEAD yet? That would be interesting, even without releasing officially.
              I may grab the source from CVS and integrate it locally, anyway, just
              for doing some experimentations.

              Thanks.
              Ciao
              Giuliano
            • Micah Martin
              No it s not in CVS. He sent the patch to the group so you could retrieve it and apply the patch to the most recent fitnesse bundle. Micah Martin Object
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                No it's not in CVS.  He sent the patch to the group so you could retrieve it and apply the patch to the most recent fitnesse bundle.


                Micah Martin

                Object Mentor, Inc.

                www.objectmentor.com



                On Jul 4, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Piergiuliano Bossi wrote:

                Micah Martin wrote:


                I still have the remote-edit patches from Bob Cotton that I need to 
                review and apply.  That will be a nice addition to FitNesse.  Although 
                we're still making tiny changes to FitNesse from time to time... Object 
                Mentor has become very busy and that means that, unfortunately, FitNesse 
                has to take a back seat for a while.  I don't anticipate any significant 
                development on FitNesse for a few more months.




                Oh, I understand. Does that mean that Bob's patch isn't committed in CVS 
                HEAD yet? That would be interesting, even without releasing officially.
                I may grab the source from CVS and integrate it locally, anyway, just 
                for doing some experimentations.

                Thanks.
                Ciao
                Giuliano




                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:





              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.