OFBIZ-4872: webdriver integration

[Tom]

Dear Scott Gray:


I would like to inform you that Thomas Burns has passed away on Monday
December 3rd. We are still in shock and are trying to come to grips of
the loss my beloved husband. If you have any questions please e-mail me
back. Thomas enjoyed working along with you.
Thank you:
Nelly Burns




________________________________
 From: Scott Gray <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: OFBIZ-4872: webdriver integration
 
On 7/12/2012, at 12:43 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

>
> On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>
>> If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
>> animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
>> quality, ...) the project, not to force or constrain to work only on a
>> short list of subject.
>
> Correct, and no one is *forcing* anyone (again, please help to keep the conversation relaxed): the committer group is helping to show some of the priorities of the project but anyone is free to work on different tasks; but of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the committers will have to make it part of the project even if they do not think it is a good fit (here I am talking in general, not on this specific topic).
>
>>
>> Erwan works on software quality from a long time and it's not its first
>> contributions on this subject. I don't understand why he should wait
>> someone ask him to work on it.
>
> See above (of course Erwan is free to work on what he wants but if he wants to commit it to OFBiz and there are concerns in the committer group they have to be addressed).
>
> Jacopo

One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of the work for OFBiz before starting.  I find it frustrating that reviewers are then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in the work.

In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a good feature?" test.  Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should be made well aware of that before starting.

Regards
Scott

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I must say I don't. The Neogia team is. And they are an important part of the OFBiz ecosystem. Their efforts should not be neglected. Erwan is no longer part of the Neogia team but he is still in contact with them. At least AFAIK...
>
> This is an interesting point: the Neogia team (company? community?) is important as any other contributor; however they are a separate ecosystem that a long time ago decided to split from OFBiz and develop their own software, best practices, tools etc.. at the point that now the OFBiz community and the Neogia community may have choosen quite different tools and best practices; of course the members of the Neogia team think that what they do is the right way and the same happens to the members of the OFBiz community;  if the Neogia community now wants to share some of their tools or best practices they can offer them, but we, as the OFBiz community, should not feel any pressure to endorse them; and the fact that all the members of the Neogia team agree that the tools are important is irrelevant (of course they do, if not they would have changed them).

Neogia has a community (though not quite clear to me), backed by a company: Nereides. But I think you already know that Jacopo.
Neogia team is now working for years with their addons system based on the OFBiz trunk. So they are not so far as when they splitted initially.

I believe their addons feature is the right tool to go with Apache OFBiz Extras. For the best practices it's another story and shoud be driven by common sense
For the web driver it seems interesting to me, but not as the same level than the addons system

And no, I never feel any pressure (I'm still an independent worker), just want OFBiz to be as alive as possible

>
> All that said, I want to clarify that I am not feeling any pressure and no one at Neogia tried to put pressure on me so I am good and I appreciate their efforts in sharing with us what they are doing; in the same time I will not feel bad if I don't think they are a good fit for the OFBiz project (and the fact that I, or we,  and them could be in disagreement on some topics is quite natural as we come from two different ecosystems that voluntarily separated from each other).

Sure but what is refraining you for web driver? More that you feel there is no needs than code quality, right? So you will see it more in Extras? What others think about it? Are you interested?

Jacques

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo

[Ean Schuessler]

Maybe more of this work needs to be done in feature branches? You can make the argument that SVN (at least as far as I know) encourages an "everything goes in the central repository" work flow because it doesn't have the GIT distributed workflow. We certainly don't want to discourage new and adventurous development because that is the road to "fossilization" but, on the other hand, we definitely don't want every wild idea just going into upstream and turning it into a big mess. In the GIT workflow, these changes would be made in someone's fork and they would issue a pull request. Reasonable criticisms about style or architecture would be addressed and then the work would be pulled in as a whole when it reaches a certain level of quality.

This is an important topic. Its basically the same issue that provoked David to go create the Moqui framework. Evolving the platform while keeping architectural coherency and stability is not easy. I do think we need to pursue this "app store" concept and find a way for "plugins" to be a major part of how we add features. Adding these features in needs to be as easy as clearing the cache in Webtools so that implementors do not feel like they are a "second class citizen" just because their code isn't in the core upstream repository. If we figured that out properly we might want to jettison A LOT more stuff from core.

----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
> One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of the work for OFBiz before starting. I find it frustrating that reviewers are then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in the work.
> In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a good feature?" test. Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should be made well aware of that before starting.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[hidden email]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com 

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

2012/12/6 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> > On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >
>
 ../..

> >
> > All that said, I want to clarify that I am not feeling any pressure and
> no one at Neogia tried to put pressure on me so I am good and I appreciate
> their efforts in sharing with us what they are doing; in the same time I
> will not feel bad if I don't think they are a good fit for the OFBiz
> project (and the fact that I, or we,  and them could be in disagreement on
> some topics is quite natural as we come from two different ecosystems that
> voluntarily separated from each other).
>
> Sure but what is refraining you for web driver? More that you feel there
> is no needs than code quality, right? So you will see it more in Extras?
> What others think about it? Are you interested?
>
> I don't think this could be moved to extras, but this is more a framework

addition. The integration that has been done is designed to be fully
integrated with OFBiz and part of the framework.
It's not a standalone component. It's like you would remove the testtools
from framework, this would have no sense at all.

Jacques
>
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
>



--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]>

> On 7/12/2012, at 12:43 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>
>>> If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
>>> animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
>>> quality, ...) the project, not to force or constrain to work only on a
>>> short list of subject.
>>
>> Correct, and no one is *forcing* anyone (again, please help to keep the conversation relaxed): the committer group is helping to show some of the priorities of the project but anyone is free to work on different tasks; but of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the committers will have to make it part of the project even if they do not think it is a good fit (here I am talking in general, not on this specific topic).
>>
>>>
>>> Erwan works on software quality from a long time and it's not its first
>>> contributions on this subject. I don't understand why he should wait
>>> someone ask him to work on it.
>>
>> See above (of course Erwan is free to work on what he wants but if he wants to commit it to OFBiz and there are concerns in the committer group they have to be addressed).
>>
>> Jacopo
>
>
> One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of the work for OFBiz before starting.  I find it frustrating that reviewers are then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in the work.

I agree Scott, this is a *strong* argument! But I fear we can't expect all new comers to know this rule if we don't make it more explicit somewhere, near the root of documentation for instance?

Also if I remember well Erwan worked on webdriver for a long time already. It was even part of a Google summer code effort, IIRW. And Erwan interacted with the community, so it's not new to us, right? It's easy to jump on it afterward and criticize.
The addons for Apache OFBiz extras is another topic, where indeed you are totally right. Like the new webhelp which will certainly sadly be put aside now, since Tom deceased.

 
> In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a good feature?" test.

There are 3 points we are/were mostly discussing at the moment
1) Neogia Addons
2) New Webhelp
3) Webdriver

Unfortunately 2 is out of scope for the moment :/ And Yes I thought Tom was doing a great job and I did not see any real pragmatic alternatives nor see any in a mid term, apart some rants and advices... And I did design review and even much hours of work, mind you.

I did not encourage 1 and 3 in any manners before they were proposed to the community, just wrote a line here and there about addons. They seems the only *ready* solution we have to better handle not only components but also inside components code plugin. They are also a perfect fit for Extras. I began to give some feedbacks to the Noegia team, design review here is a bit more involved, I guess you know that...

And yes I find all 3 of them good for OFBiz, should I been chastised? It seems you think so :)

> Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should be made well aware of that before starting.

Sure, but then we need to make that more clear to everyone, as I proposed above for instance. But I fear something, which is actually already happening, fossilisation...

This is my opinion, and  I'm maybe wrong. Anyway we need to continue the slimdown effort and then see what will happen when done. We need all the community forces for that, and we miss most of them... It's not only about time or skills, but mostly motivation...

Jacques

> Regards
> Scott

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" <[hidden email]>

> 2012/12/6 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> > On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >
>>
> ../..
>
>> >
>> > All that said, I want to clarify that I am not feeling any pressure and
>> no one at Neogia tried to put pressure on me so I am good and I appreciate
>> their efforts in sharing with us what they are doing; in the same time I
>> will not feel bad if I don't think they are a good fit for the OFBiz
>> project (and the fact that I, or we,  and them could be in disagreement on
>> some topics is quite natural as we come from two different ecosystems that
>> voluntarily separated from each other).
>>
>> Sure but what is refraining you for web driver? More that you feel there
>> is no needs than code quality, right? So you will see it more in Extras?
>> What others think about it? Are you interested?
>>
>> I don't think this could be moved to extras, but this is more a framework
> addition. The integration that has been done is designed to be fully
> integrated with OFBiz and part of the framework.
> It's not a standalone component. It's like you would remove the testtools
> from framework, this would have no sense at all.

Thanks for clarification Erwan

Jaques
 

> Jacques
>>
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Jacopo
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Ean Schuessler" <[hidden email]>
> Maybe more of this work needs to be done in feature branches? You can make the argument that SVN (at least as far as I know) encourages an "everything goes in the central repository" work flow because it doesn't have the GIT distributed workflow. We certainly don't want to discourage new and adventurous development because that is the road to "fossilization" but, on the other hand, we definitely don't want every wild idea just going into upstream and turning it into a big mess. In the GIT workflow, these changes would be made in someone's fork and they would issue a pull request. Reasonable criticisms about style or architecture would be addressed and then the work would be pulled in as a whole when it reaches a certain level of quality.

You sometimes have to take the risk. At some points you must take decisions and go ahead, being in a branches or a patch in Git or Svn or whatnot, I'm sure you know that better than I...

> This is an important topic. Its basically the same issue that provoked David to go create the Moqui framework. Evolving the platform while keeping architectural coherency and stability is not easy. I do think we need to pursue this "app store" concept and find a way for "plugins" to be a major part of how we add features. Adding these features in needs to be as easy as clearing the cache in Webtools so that implementors do not feel like they are a "second class citizen" just because their code isn't in the core upstream repository. If we figured that out properly we might want to jettison A LOT more stuff from core.

This is what Neogia addons are all about, if I understoof it well

Jacques

> ----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
>> One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of the work for OFBiz before starting. I find it frustrating that reviewers are then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in the work.
>> In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a good feature?" test. Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should be made well aware of that before starting.
>
> --
> Ean Schuessler, CTO
> [hidden email]
> 214-720-0700 x 315
> Brainfood, Inc.
> http://www.brainfood.com

[lemine youssef]

Hi every body,

I feel the duty to participate to this discussion even that I think that
e-amil
may not be the best way for discussion like this one and that distance get
things more complicated.

If anyone find that some words are inappropriate, non constructive or
hurtful,
be sure that is not volunteer and it  may be explained by the weakness
of our English, me first.

Be sure also that we are relaxed and feel very involved by ofbiz future
and has no goal except enrich discussion and will note manage our
possible to do that.


I personally have the feeling that ofbiz PCM get more and more isolated and
disconnected form the reality for some reasons :
     -Jacopo argue a contribution refusal because non one of the
community ! does he forgot that
      we (neogia team) belongs to the community and we have dozen of
customer that do too. or the
      community means PMC members only?
     -what is the main role of the community, except that it should
influence PCM choices?
      You should,  as PMC member, take the community request into
consideration !
     -we all know how the ofbiz framework is great and well built, but
the ofbiz does not take off, whey?
        I explain that by the fact that ofbiz PCM choices get
disconnected from the end users expectations
          and needs and all what count is that pmc team consideration.

     -PMC members reactivity decreases dramatically giving external
observers the feeling that they
      have no more the same motivation and no more involved by the
project life !
     -Is it normal that there where no enough PMC members at last apache
conf ? i don't think so.

It should be that we (neogia or nereide team) don't have anything to
blame for the ofbiz
PMC members we consider theme as necessary.

Regards,
Youssef.

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "lemine youssef" <[hidden email]>

> Hi every body,
>
> I feel the duty to participate to this discussion even that I think that
> e-amil
> may not be the best way for discussion like this one and that distance get
> things more complicated.
>
> If anyone find that some words are inappropriate, non constructive or
> hurtful,
> be sure that is not volunteer and it  may be explained by the weakness
> of our English, me first.
>
> Be sure also that we are relaxed and feel very involved by ofbiz future
> and has no goal except enrich discussion and will note manage our
> possible to do that.
>
>
> I personally have the feeling that ofbiz PCM get more and more isolated and
> disconnected form the reality for some reasons :
>     -Jacopo argue a contribution refusal because non one of the
> community ! does he forgot that
>      we (neogia team) belongs to the community and we have dozen of
> customer that do too. or the
>      community means PMC members only?

Sorry not clear, I guess you meant
- Jacopo was against committing this contribution because nobody in the community was interested?

>     -what is the main role of the community, except that it should
> influence PCM choices?
>      You should,  as PMC member, take the community request into
> consideration !
>     -we all know how the ofbiz framework is great and well built, but
> the ofbiz does not take off, whey?
>        I explain that by the fact that ofbiz PCM choices get
> disconnected from the end users expectations
>          and needs and all what count is that pmc team consideration.
>
>     -PMC members reactivity decreases dramatically giving external
> observers the feeling that they
>      have no more the same motivation and no more involved by the
> project life !
>     -Is it normal that there where no enough PMC members at last apache
> conf ? i don't think so.
>
> It should be that we (neogia or nereide team) don't have anything to
> blame for the ofbiz
> PMC members we consider theme as necessary.
>
> Regards,
> Youssef.

At this stage I think it's no longer necessary to continue the discussion, Jacopo gave his arguments; so did other members of the community. It seems we will not get to a consensus about committing this contribution or not.

So I'd suggest a vote, however remember this Apache rule http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

<<Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In this scenario, a negative vote constitutes a veto , which cannot be overridden. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy consensus declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the full-stop nature of a negative vote is unchanged. Under normal (non-lazy consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive votes and no negative ones in order to pass; if it fails to garner the requisite amount of support, it doesn't -- and typically is either withdrawn, modified, or simply allowed to languish as an open issue until someone gets around to removing it.>>

So if any of the binding voters (PMC members) votes negatively this will not be commited... So maybe before using a tedious official vote procedure, it would be better for PMC members to express their opininon, a sole -1 and all this discussion is over... Even if from a technical perspective I really don't see the reason...

Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Youssef,

please see inline:

On Dec 6, 2012, at 11:00 PM, lemine youssef wrote:

> I personally have the feeling that ofbiz PCM get more and more isolated and
> disconnected form the reality for some reasons :
>    -Jacopo argue a contribution refusal because non one of the community ! does he forgot that
>     we (neogia team) belongs to the community and we have dozen of customer that do too. or the
>     community means PMC members only?
>    -what is the main role of the community, except that it should influence PCM choices?
>     You should,  as PMC member, take the community request into consideration !

And we do; however Neogia team is not the OFbiz community, it is simply one player in the OFBiz community.
Because of the fact that the Neogia team is clearly a lobby (you have all the same opinion on topics and you together try to put pressure, as you are doing now, on the PMC to get things done as the team decided) I consider it as being *one* member of the OFBiz community with one opinion; this is not enough to claim that the community wants something and that the PMC has to implement accordingly.
Please consider that the ASF is here to make sure that no community is driven by the interest of one Company; this is clearly true for OFBiz but it is clearly not true for Neogia and if, following your reasonings, the OFBiz PMC should implement what Neogia asks (because of its "importance") then we would defeat the real goal of the ASF; instead the OFBiz PMC will protect the OFBiz community from such influences.

>    -we all know how the ofbiz framework is great and well built, but the ofbiz does not take off, whey?
>       I explain that by the fact that ofbiz PCM choices get disconnected from the end users expectations
>         and needs and all what count is that pmc team consideration.

This is just your opinion and I could read it in a completely different one: I could state that the reason is that in the last years the codebase grew uncontrolled with a bunch of useless (to many) features/tools and this led to an uncontrolled grow of its complexity and maintenance cost (in terms of time).
However in the last years (and same is happening now) I have helped some really big customers to deploy OFBiz in their complex business and they are happy and successful... so your initial statement may be incorrect as OFBiz is taking off in many situations.

>
>    -PMC members reactivity decreases dramatically giving external observers the feeling that they
>     have no more the same motivation and no more involved by the project life !

This is a psychological issue on your side: you feel out of the community ("external observer") and so you see the PMC acting

>    -Is it normal that there where no enough PMC members at last apache conf ? i don't think so.

Yes, it is quite common indeed.

All that said I want to give to you (and all Neogia crew) a suggestion: rather than arguing with the PMC or committers when we are in disagreement on something, and waste yours and the committers time complaining, please try to get the most from our suggestions; also if there is a tool that you would like OFBiz to adopt then do your best to make sure that several other independent community members are using it, sharing ideas, and improving it; at that point it will be easier for the committer group to integrate it into the official codebase.

What I see right now is this:

Neogia <-----> OFBiz PMC/committers <-----> OFBiz Community

rather than:

Neogia -----> OFBiz Community <-----> OFBiz PMC/committers

I also suspect that the lack of feedback that the Neogia team is getting from the OFBiz community (most of your posts get ignored) may be due to a language barrier: unfortunately most of the messages (including this one) sent by the Neogia team are really hard to read and understand. Since the official language of the OFBiz project is the English, I would suggest you to invest more time in improving the quality of the communications in this language.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

[Olivier.heintz]

Le 06/12/2012 16:40, Erwan de FERRIERES a écrit :

> 2012/12/6 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>  ../..
>>> All that said, I want to clarify that I am not feeling any pressure and
>>
>> Sure but what is refraining you for web driver? More that you feel there
>> is no needs than code quality, right? So you will see it more in Extras?
>> What others think about it? Are you interested?
>>
>> I don't think this could be moved to extras, but this is more a framework
> addition. The integration that has been done is designed to be fully
> integrated with OFBiz and part of the framework.
> It's not a standalone component. It's like you would remove the testtools
> from framework, this would have no sense at all.

I think, there are multiple questions about webdriver integration :
1) Is it necessary to have a UI test process integrated in OFBiz ?
2) is it time to integrate a UI test tools in OFBiz ?
3) is webdriver is a good tools for web UI test ?
4) is the webdriver integration proposed is correct ?

Of course, answer can be simple like yes or no
OR maybe the wording of the question is not correct and it's necessary
to reformulate.

Trying to help discussion, NOT TO hide some part of it or constrain
someone to say something.

[Olivier.heintz]

Le 06/12/2012 17:20, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]>
>> On 7/12/2012, at 12:43 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
>>>> animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
>>>> quality, ...) the project, not to force or constrain to work only on a
>>>> short list of subject.
>>> Correct, and no one is *forcing* anyone (again, please help to keep the conversation relaxed): the committer group is helping to show some of the priorities of the project but anyone is free to work on different tasks; but of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the committers will have to make it part of the project even if they do not think it is a good fit (here I am talking in general, not on this specific topic).
>>>
>>>> Erwan works on software quality from a long time and it's not its first
>>>> contributions on this subject. I don't understand why he should wait
>>>> someone ask him to work on it.
>>> See above (of course Erwan is free to work on what he wants but if he wants to commit it to OFBiz and there are concerns in the committer group they have to be addressed).
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>> One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of the work for OFBiz before starting.  I find it frustrating that reviewers are then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in the work.
> I agree Scott, this is a *strong* argument! But I fear we can't expect all new comers to know this rule if we don't make it more explicit somewhere, near the root of documentation for instance?
>
> Also if I remember well Erwan worked on webdriver for a long time already. It was even part of a Google summer code effort, IIRW. And Erwan interacted with the community, so it's not new to us, right? It's easy to jump on it afterward and criticize.
> The addons for Apache OFBiz extras is another topic, where indeed you are totally right. Like the new webhelp which will certainly sadly be put aside now, since Tom deceased.

I don't want to say all I do is correct, but for  ofbiz addon
1) I have start by a situation status  on my mail "OFBiz Plugin
Management, status and propositions"  18th March
2) as proposed by Jacopo, work in OFBiz extra to be able to prepare
ready to use tools to help ofbiz community testing it and doing remarks
on bad and good point;
3) prepare a track on ApacheCon to explain how to use it and to meet
other ofbiz community member
4) nicolas continue to help by writing a short howto

I understand everybody is overbooking by its own customer project, but
we really try to follow PMC and commiter advices to present contributions
>  
>> In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a good feature?" test.
> There are 3 points we are/were mostly discussing at the moment
you forgot portletWidget in the list,
a large point too, with a lot of job to facilitate review : jira,
sub-jira for each technical point, usage of example component, usage for
party component to be more explicit, detail documentations include in
ofbiz help, ...
> 1) Neogia Addons
> 2) New Webhelp
> 3) Webdriver
solr implementation is an other subject with a wonderful detail Jira
> Unfortunately 2 is out of scope for the moment :/ And Yes I thought Tom was doing a great job and I did not see any real pragmatic alternatives nor see any in a mid term, apart some rants and advices... And I did design review and even much hours of work, mind you.
>
> I did not encourage 1 and 3 in any manners before they were proposed to the community, just wrote a line here and there about addons. They seems the only *ready* solution we have to better handle not only components but also inside components code plugin. They are also a perfect fit for Extras. I began to give some feedbacks to the Noegia team, design review here is a bit more involved, I guess you know that...
>
> And yes I find all 3 of them good for OFBiz, should I been chastised? It seems you think so :)
One more time, nobody search to find who is bad or who is good.
I'm just disappointed that with 25 commiters, there is not enough time
for review. It's not a blame, it's only a fact and we should do with it.

I try to contribute on the correct way and to help to enhance the
contribution process.
>> Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should be made well aware of that before starting.
> Sure, but then we need to make that more clear to everyone, as I proposed above for instance. But I fear something, which is actually already happening, fossilisation...
>
> This is my opinion, and  I'm maybe wrong. Anyway we need to continue the slimdown effort and then see what will happen when done. We need all the community forces for that, and we miss most of them... It's not only about time or skills, but mostly motivation...
>
> Jacques
>
>> Regards
>> Scott

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:

> I'm just disappointed that with 25 commiters, there is not enough time for review. It's not a blame, it's only a fact and we should do with it.

I think you got plenty of reviews recently; the problem is that, when the contributor doesn't like the review and start arguing against it, this require additional time and energy.
Also, I have noticed that you often receive more attention from committers rather than users... this is a problem because we are using the limited time of committers for features that may interest only to the contributor. It would be probably a better approach if committer's time is asked only after a good number of users have tested and appreciate the contribution.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:

> I don't want to say all I do is correct, but for  ofbiz addon
> 1) I have start by a situation status  on my mail "OFBiz Plugin
> Management, status and propositions"  18th March
> 2) as proposed by Jacopo, work in OFBiz extra to be able to prepare
> ready to use tools to help ofbiz community testing it and doing remarks
> on bad and good point;

I simply proposed (and this is still the best way to go in my opinion) to create a page in the OFBiz website with links to the OFbiz Extra space, clearly explaining the difference between the Apache OFBiz project and these external projects.
You decided it was not enough and went your own road, taking the risk of implementing something that may not be of interest to others.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

> 3) prepare a track on ApacheCon to explain how to use it and to meet
> other ofbiz community member
> 4) nicolas continue to help by writing a short howto
>
> I understand everybody is overbooking by its own customer project, but
> we really try to follow PMC and commiter advices to present contributions
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>
>> I don't want to say all I do is correct, but for  ofbiz addon
>> 1) I have start by a situation status  on my mail "OFBiz Plugin
>> Management, status and propositions"  18th March
>> 2) as proposed by Jacopo, work in OFBiz extra to be able to prepare
>> ready to use tools to help ofbiz community testing it and doing remarks
>> on bad and good point;
>
> I simply proposed (and this is still the best way to go in my opinion) to create a page in the OFBiz website with links to the OFbiz Extra space, clearly explaining the difference between the Apache OFBiz project and these external projects.
> You decided it was not enough and went your own road, taking the risk of implementing something that may not be of interest to others.

I believe the so-called addons deserve a "bit" more effort. But yes indeed the root should be from the wiki itself "being rooted by" the main site http://ofbiz.apache.org/

Jacques
 

> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>> 3) prepare a track on ApacheCon to explain how to use it and to meet
>> other ofbiz community member
>> 4) nicolas continue to help by writing a short howto
>>
>> I understand everybody is overbooking by its own customer project, but
>> we really try to follow PMC and commiter advices to present contributions
>>
>
>
>

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

Please use another thread..
This one is for the webdriver integration, not the addon system.

BTW, Jacopo, I have resolved all the issues you were having in the previous
patch, and I'm waiting for your comments.
Are there still some issues ?

Thanks,


2012/12/11 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> > On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
> >
> >> I don't want to say all I do is correct, but for  ofbiz addon
> >> 1) I have start by a situation status  on my mail "OFBiz Plugin
> >> Management, status and propositions"  18th March
> >> 2) as proposed by Jacopo, work in OFBiz extra to be able to prepare
> >> ready to use tools to help ofbiz community testing it and doing remarks
> >> on bad and good point;
> >
> > I simply proposed (and this is still the best way to go in my opinion)
> to create a page in the OFBiz website with links to the OFbiz Extra space,
> clearly explaining the difference between the Apache OFBiz project and
> these external projects.
> > You decided it was not enough and went your own road, taking the risk of
> implementing something that may not be of interest to others.
>
> I believe the so-called addons deserve a "bit" more effort. But yes indeed
> the root should be from the wiki itself "being rooted by" the main site
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>
> Jacques
>
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> >> 3) prepare a track on ApacheCon to explain how to use it and to meet
> >> other ofbiz community member
> >> 4) nicolas continue to help by writing a short howto
> >>
> >> I understand everybody is overbooking by its own customer project, but
> >> we really try to follow PMC and commiter advices to present
> contributions
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 11, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

> BTW, Jacopo, I have resolved all the issues you were having in the previous
> patch, and I'm waiting for your comments.
> Are there still some issues ?

I apologize for the late reply.
First of all a premise: I have already expressed my personal opinion about the pros and cons of delivering this tool ootb; by the way I would like to see if there is a rather large number of users in this community interested in this feature and in contributing tests.
That said, I have reviewed the patch (again) and I still see issues:
* several files without a license header
* added dependencies from framework to applications (OfbizConnection.java)
* the method getAllFuncTestSuiteInfos() is implemented but never used
* there are new code snippets that are commented out (why commit them?)
* the name "functional tests" doesn't seem appropriate to me ("user interface tests"?)
* the method name JunitSuiteWrapper.processResourceHandler(...) is misleading
* do we really need to commit all the changes in all the application components that simply add the same test to authenticate a user over and over?

But the main concern I have is still that at the beginning of this email: that we are adding a lot of code and jars (downloaded thru ivy) in order to support ui tests done for a specific tool but then no one will really contribute significant test suites based on it.

Jacopo