Re: quality assurance (was: Re: GNUstep Base 1.11.0)

[Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf]

Am Samstag, 23.07.05 um 19:29 Uhr schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald:

> On 2005-07-23 16:11:30 +0100 Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf 
> <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Samstag, 23.07.05 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Benoit Astruc:
> > > Hello,
> > > I just tried to compil GNUstep Base 1.11.0, freshly download from  
> > > GNUstep http) and I found that there is an error GSXML.m at line 5 
> > > 142  :
> > > request = [tequest initWithURL: [NSURL URLWithString: 
> > > connectionURL]];
> > > should be
> > > request = [request initWithURL: [NSURL URLWithString: 
> > > connectionURL]];
> > > I suppose.
> > > Maybe it's corrected in CVS but it seems quite bad to have such 
> > > error  in the last stable version.
> > IIRC the odd minor release number (11 in 1.11.0) points out that this 
> >  is an unstable release of GNUstep.
> > But nevertheless I think it is a bad sign that this kind of a bug  
> > (doesn't compile) could creep into a *release* of GNUstep. And even  
> > worse, it would not have been detected if Benoit would not have built 
> >  this special configuration. The bug has gone unnoticed for a long 
> > time,  it has been introduced with:
> > http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gnustep/gnustep/core/base/ 
> > Source/Additions/GSXML.m.diff?r1=1.78&r2=1.79
> > on Sat Mar 12 17:38:18 2005 annotated with "Patch to port GSXMLRPC to 
> > MacOSX" which tells me the submitter did *not* test his patch before 
> > committing. Otherwise he would have experienced what Benoit 
> > experienced.
> > Please don't get me wrong here. I don't want to do finger pointing  
> > because of a small bug that only occurs in border cases. My issue is  
> > something else:
> > While we keep fixing things here while inadvertently destroying 
> > things  there.
> > This shows that we could need some sort of quality assurance in our 
> > development process. Otherwise GNUstep will never become really 
> > mature.
> > There are several things we could do in this regard (all stolen from  
> > the GCC team)
> > CVS check-ins:
> > - require at least a compile test before things get checked in (this  
> > would catch this sort of bugs)
> > - peer review of patches to be checked in
> > - do a regression test before checking in things (needs test cases, 
> > see below)
> > bug fixes:
> > - write test cases that prove a bug is fixed
> > releases:
> > - create a CVS branch (not just a tag) for each release (this helps 
> > to insure that no new bugs are introduced in bugfix releases (caused 
> > by  new features added meanwhile))
> > - maintain release branches for a while, at least until the next 
> > stable release (and port bugfixes back to mainline of course)
> > - create a series of release candidates before actually doing the  
> > release
> > some of those are very complex (peer review comes to my mind here)  
> > others not. I think we should at least require some of them
> > What do you think?
>
> Well ... all those things are nice to have, but they are obviously of 
> varying cost/benefit ratios.
>
> None of them caught this bug (and most of them are in routine use in 
> varying degrees) ... because the sad fact is that nobody had this 
> particular setup ... realistically there is no way to catch bugs in 
> unusual configurations because people won't have the 
> machines/operating systems  or resources to change 
> machine/OS/configuration etc, so you have to adopt one of two 
> approaches ...
>
> 1. reduce all the options/configurations to a minimal set such that 
> they can be properly tested/supported by the core developers..
> 2. accept that the odd options/configurations won't get tested except 
> when people who need to use them try them out.
>
> I think we generally prefer the second approach, but there is always a 
> balance struck between the two extremes.
>
> Personally, I think that branching is more overhead than it's worth, 
> but that regression testing is good, which is why that I wrote the 
> regression testing framework we've been using up till now, and support 
> the move to the latest one (because it's easier for ObjC programmers 
> to write tests for).

Branching is good in the way that we can point users of GNUstep to a 
bugfix release if they happen to encounter a bug in a GNUstep release 
instead of saying: "use the CVS version" which turned into some sort of 
standard reply in the case of a bug. That would give us greater freedom 
on changing things in the CVS while still having something useable for 
the users. This would also result in applications developed against a 
certain release instead of have an application requiring the CVS 
because a necessary bugfix is in there.

Think about your use-pattern of GCC: do you use the CVS or weekly 
snapshot version of GCC or do you use GCC 3.3.6 or GCC 3.4.4 because 
the later are a lot more mature than the first two? People don't want 
always live on the bleeding edge.

And in turn this could improve the perception of GNUstep. I spoke to 
several Cocoa-developers who tried to use GNUstep (after I am told them 
to do so). The common response was that every time something else is 
broken, including things which already were working, which annoyed them 
a lot and was leading to the conclusion: "GNUstep is just a hobbyists 
project"

> I don't think that a test on all platforms/configurations is 
> reasonable before a checkin ... that's just not ever going to be 
> practical.  I do agree that a test of the standard gnu/linux build is 
> needed ... but I think everyone does that.
>
> You say 'which tells me the submitter did *not* test his patch before 
> committing'
>
> If I remember correctly, I committed that patch on behalf of the 
> submitter, and I'm sure he tested the code before he sent it to us ... 
> as he was using it himself.  The fact is that accidental alterations 
> to files/patches do occur between testing and being 
> submitted/committed ... this particular single character change 
> probably was a result of viewing in an editor for a visual check. I 
> don't think it suggests that the submitter was bad/sloppy  in the 
> processes he used.
>
> So ... my vote for priorities would be ..
>
> 1. ask people to volunteer to test the odd configurations they have 
> the machines for.  If we had a list of people who actuyally used the 
> less popular hardware, operating systems, and configuration/build 
> options, we could do an email reminder asking them to test the latest 
> cvs code just before a release (even better if they could do automated 
> builds/tests on a daily basis, I think someone was working on that)

How about using the donation money GNUstep got for buying some testing 
machines which would go into the same place as the GNUstep web servers 
are and could then be used for testing/developing GNUstep onto some 
more "exotic" platforms: Some *BSD, some Solaris boxen (be it x86 or 
SPARC), a Mac (Mac mini should be enough), maybe some HPUX box should 
be enough for the start. Those machines don't necessarily need to be 
new hardware, I guess we could get them used somewhere for cheap. Then 
put them online with special ssh accounts (maybe some VNC too) for the 
core devs and there you go: compilation and testing is possible 
remotely for those who need it.

Even better than donating a machine to developer X because this way all 
can participate and share.

> 2. keep asking people to contribute regression testcases if/when they 
> have the time.  The fact that people had to install guile to run the 
> old regression tests was an excuse for them not to help ... with the 
> new testsuite that excuse no longer exists.

maybe we should ask for testcases/bug isolations on the bug reporting 
page?

> 3. probably everything else is either way lower priority or routine 
> anyway.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep