Forum OpenACS Q&A: forums package

Posted by defunct defunct on 10/24/02 07:03 PM

I believe OF is the package maintainer for this.

Can whoever if looking after it over the please confirm whether the testing issues found (currently keeping it as rejected)
have been addressed?

http://213.107.207.131:8000/accept/report-view?accept_package_report_id=2779

2: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by Ben Adida on 10/24/02 07:17 PM

Simon or whoever else is testing this: can you comment on what the specific issues are? Are they all in the comments on the testing page?

3: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by defunct defunct on 10/24/02 07:36 PM

Yes, the comments have been recorded with the certificate.

I imagine that SDM entries have probably been raised, but the tester will need to confirm.

4: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by Ben Adida on 10/24/02 07:55 PM

I know of the issue Jeff raised wrt to the opening/closing of forums. Is that the top issue? What are the issues that require fixing immediately, IYO?

5: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by Dave Bauer on 10/24/02 08:18 PM

I fixed a couple of things:

Validation of subject of body with only whitespace, it now returns an error to the user to enter something.

Validation of HTML for security.

Loss of subject if there was a data entry error and the form was returned with an error.

6: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by defunct defunct on 10/24/02 08:38 PM

Well, if the tester has failed it for the reasons he's listed, I would suggest they all need doing.

As I don't personally test every package I have to trust the judgement of the tester.

Also, as his comment suggests none of them are particularly difficult, seems silly not to do 'em all now.

In fact I would like to point out (for everyones benefits) that the purpose of Acc testing is not to alleviate that burden from developers, and just find bugs for them.

Its to determine a packages fitness for release. So if the tester is telling me its unsuitable, it won't go in the release. And without substantial justification I will back the tester every time.

If we don't start clearing things up before moving on then this toolkit is never going to get itself out of the 'hacker-hole' its still stuck in at the moment.

Besides, and this applies to all developers, if we don't take this issues seriously and fix bugs when they're found, then makes the excerise a complete waste of time, and creates demotivated testers.

Forums is an important package that people want to see in the tookit. So I can see no need for 'rating' bugs. It ain't fit for release, so they gotta be fixed.

7: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by Jeff Davis on 10/24/02 08:38 PM

Most of the tickets in SDM for forums now came out of the acceptance
testing I did (and the report has the ticket number for
each observation). There is no "blocking" state in SDM
so I couldn't designate any particular thing as being
a blocking ticket but I think 1849, 1856, and 1859 should
be considered blocking and the rest are merely annoying.

Again, with the exception of the permissioning issue I think all
are pretty easy to fix.

8: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by Ben Adida on 10/24/02 09:03 PM

Simon: I'm only trying to find the low hanging fruit to get this package up to par ASAP. Looking forward to separate package distribution, so that we don't have to have all the release dates in sync :)

I'm going to try to tackle some of these issues today/tomorrow. I will focus on Jeff's 3 bugs above, and then continue with the others.

9: Response to forums package - status (response to 1)

Posted by defunct defunct on 10/24/02 10:07 PM

Yup agreed, but like I say... we do have to get the whole thing to a certain, quality (i.e. bug fixed) level before there's any point in separating out distribution.

So the sooner its all fixed the better all round ;o)

Forum OpenACS Q&A: forums package - status