[
10:15am
]
balunasj
:
ok all lets get back at it.
[
10:15am
]
balunasj
:
we have our team meeting in about 45 min.
[
10:16am
]
alexsmirnov joined the chat room.
[
10:17am
]
balunasj
:
We are going to shift the semantic markup talk to thursday
[
10:18am
]
balunasj
:
so we will move on to
[
10:19am
]
balunasj
:
component migration topics, and finish off any lingering component related issues.
[
10:19am
]
balunasj
:
here is the link to the current status:
[
10:19am
]
balunasj
:
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/RichFaces40ALPHA2ComponentMigrationPlanStatus
[
10:21am
]
balunasj
:
I have not been able to updated this since we discussed shifting out component priority topics.
[
10:21am
]
balunasj
:
The requirements are stated, and I would like to go over the ideas and plans here
[
10:22am
]
balunasj
:
so the idea here is to create a process for adding components to 4.0
[
10:22am
]
balunasj
:
At first this will be almost entirely for migration of components form 3.3.X
[
10:23am
]
pmuir_ joined the chat room.
[
10:23am
]
balunasj
:
but eventually the same process would be used for new component development and components contributed by the community.
[
10:23am
]
nbelaevski
:
it seems we need to add design & QA points to migration plan requirements
[
10:24am
]
balunasj
:
I would like to set up guidelines and requirements for adding components to the sandbox
[
10:24am
]
balunasj
:
and guidelines for migration to core UI.
[
10:24am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: Agreed.
[
10:24am
]
nbelaevski
:
e.g. formalize behaviors support as part of design phase & verification of accessibility for QA team
[
10:25am
]
balunasj
:
yes - good point about behaviors - that a new area to discuss as well.
[
10:25am
]
balunasj
:
So some of my thoughts for requirements into sandbox:
[
10:25am
]
balunasj
:
- built with maven
[
10:26am
]
balunasj
:
- readme with brief explanation of component and structure.
[
10:26am
]
balunasj
:
- unit tests not required
[
10:26am
]
balunasj
:
- documentation plan not required
[
10:27am
]
balunasj
:
- discussed in wiki page and or forums ( linked in readme)
[
10:27am
]
balunasj
:
We'll need to define more details of the build as well.
[
10:28am
]
balunasj
:
I think for sandbox we do not need to be strict with dependencies ( obviously for core UI it would be ).
[
10:28am
]
balunasj
:
We should describe minimum plugin support, and structure for sandbox.
[
10:29am
]
balunasj
:
sandbox will not be built using CI
[
10:29am
]
balunasj
:
any other thoughts on requirements to get into sanbox component area.
[
10:29am
]
•
balunasj
 
also need to consider themes/skins but that is lower priority.
[
10:30am
]
balunasj
:
?
[
10:30am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
commited components should has dev - sample
[
10:30am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
have
[
10:30am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: completely agree for migration to core UI
[
10:31am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: do you think that should be required to get into sandbox?
[
10:31am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
it would be good also for review in sandbox.. so commiter should provide it I think
[
10:31am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
it would be easier
[
10:31am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
and not too much work for dev as he already created some test app
[
10:31am
]
nbelaevski
:
ilya_shaikovsky: committer can create it after some time, so won't agree it's required
[
10:32am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
And how he develop the component without checking how it works? I think he could commit the sample from the beggining
[
10:32am
]
nbelaevski
:
ilya_shaikovsky: using TDD
[
10:32am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
and state of the component could be easilly checked by any of us
[
10:32am
]
balunasj
:
I would like it to be somewhat easy for people to add components to sandbox, but hard to move out to core.
[
10:33am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
so I think developer has the sample in any case to check what he've done So just let him share it
[
10:33am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
[
10:33am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: sandbox criterias look really relaxing
[
10:34am
]
balunasj
:
hehe
[
10:34am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
nbelaevski, and that's cool
[
10:34am
]
pmuir left the chat room. (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[
10:34am
]
balunasj
:
at first this is going to only the core dev team, but eventually I would like to make it easy for people to request a new component.
[
10:34am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: do we need separate sandboxes for migration and new community artifacts?
[
10:34am
]
balunasj
:
s/request/create
[
10:35am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: I think no, since we'll not have community artifacts for a while I think.
[
10:35am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: ok
[
10:35am
]
balunasj
:
i.e. once CDK, and archetypes are out there and people really migrate to JSF 2.
[
10:35am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: then I think we don't have to require component example as part of sandbox work
[
10:36am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: agree
[
10:36am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: and have nothing to add to criterias you've announced already
[
10:36am
]
balunasj
:
and the only documentation requirements are readme at first.
[
10:37am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: right
[
10:37am
]
balunasj
:
although we should reference a jira, or wiki article in the readme - where the component is discussed.
[
10:38am
]
nbelaevski
:
agree
[
10:38am
]
balunasj
:
eventually ( this might be way down the road ), but an archetype that creates the sandbox minimum would be neat
[
10:38am
]
balunasj
:
there are really two other main things to discuss with this.
[
10:38am
]
balunasj
:
we should probably move on to them
[
10:39am
]
balunasj
:
1) criteria for moving from sandbox to core UI
[
10:39am
]
balunasj
:
2) Component migration from 3.3.X --> 4.0 steps
[
10:39am
]
balunasj
:
I think 2) might be more important to discuss for now.
[
10:39am
]
nbelaevski
:
we can add 3) migration of auto tests suite
[
10:40am
]
nbelaevski
:
it's a big volume of code alsi
[
10:40am
]
nbelaevski
:
*alsi -> also
[
10:40am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: you mean the selenium tests and the apps that go with it?
[
10:40am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: yes. changed requirements -> changes in tests
[
10:41am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: yes good point - do you think that is part of the example sandbox?  or at the component level?
[
10:41am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: ^ this involves some of your code and plans too I think
[
10:42am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: back here
[
10:42am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: at f-2-f meeting we discussed this can be at the components level, but decided to use examples-sandbox
[
10:43am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: yes thanks for reminding me - I think most [all] selenium/functional tests end up with an application of some type that is then tested.  These I agree belong in the example-sandbox.
[
10:43am
]
nbelaevski
:
also this may affect assembly system
[
10:43am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: that's so
[
10:44am
]
balunasj
:
although I would like to hear from prabhat about there locations and plans for the test applications?
[
10:44am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: there's a testing code (assertions) also, however it checks aplication
[
10:45am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: right - I think there is a connection there, but the core UI should be a strict component impl I think.
[
10:45am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: agree
[
10:45am
]
balunasj
:
the dev example can be part of example/dev area perhaps - iirc we discussed this as well.
[
10:45am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: nbelaevski i have not gone through all of the discussions but as we are working on components on 4.0, please port corresponding tests that you have written
[
10:46am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: unless we are going to integrate fragments of testing code support into CDK template
[
10:46am
]
prabhat
:
we will work on functional testing
[
10:46am
]
nbelaevski
:
prabhat: there are non migrated for now
[
10:46am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: we are discussion the process of migrating that source code and the right location for it.
[
10:47am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: This is our chance to "clean" this a bit and perhaps make for a cleaner build system
[
10:47am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: explain the CDK template comment more please?
[
10:47am
]
prabhat
:
balunasj: I am all for cleaner build system that does not make me wait for all checkout
[
10:47am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: do you mean an archetype that generates these bits.
[
10:48am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: no, i mean presense of test data in CDK code
[
10:48am
]
balunasj
:
prabhat: that is just it - I want to make it easier for build system to choose building component, framework, or test app.
[
10:48am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: e.g. generation of UI description for easier Selenium tests development
[
10:49am
]
nbelaevski
:
http://code.google.com/p/aost/
[
10:49am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: looking, and thinking....
[
10:50am
]
nbelaevski
:
what can be cool about this is that end users have better base for assertions in their own functional tests
[
10:50am
]
prabhat
:
nbelaevski: we did a Tellurium POC and it did not meet all of our requirements
[
10:50am
]
prabhat
:
nbelaevski: Pavol has the detail in jira..I will send you that jira with details
[
10:51am
]
ppitonak joined the chat room.
[
10:51am
]
prabhat
:
nbelaevski: we actually tried writing some tests in tellurium for some components and few things were either too hard or not possible in the framework
[
10:51am
]
nbelaevski
:
prabhat: yes, please. I like the approach used, but if this doesn't work, we can avoid thinking about this
[
10:51am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: I like the idea of "stubbing out" basic testing in archetypes and CDK code.  I think we would need to investigate at what level that is.
[
10:52am
]
balunasj
:
I would need to understand more about the impact on CDK.
[
10:52am
]
balunasj
:
I can tell you that auto generation of reference docs should not be part of it - imo
[
10:53am
]
prabhat
:
nbelaevski: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/RFPL-180 ..please write an email if you need more info as it's been a while
[
10:53am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: we can introduce additional attributes to let CDK generate locators for component elements in the form that aost page shows
[
10:53am
]
alexsmirnov
:
We can render special marks in the JSF 2.0 "Development" stage that simplifies components lookup for Selenium/JsfUnit tests
[
10:54am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: alexsmirnov : I like that idea - using the stage to help this.
[
10:54am
]
nbelaevski
:
prabhat: thanks, I see...
[
10:54am
]
nbelaevski
:
prabhat: probably it makes sense to post this info to aost project tracker
[
10:55am
]
prabhat
:
nbelaevski: good idea
[
10:55am
]
pmuir_ is now known as pmuir.
[
10:55am
]
balunasj
:
we are nearly out of time before the team meeting - I think it is clear there is a lot to cover here.  I'll take the lead on this and put together some wiki pages and draft plans
[
10:55am
]
balunasj
:
we did not get to cover some of the topics like 3.3.x-->4.0 steps
[
10:55am
]
balunasj
:
such as markup review
[
10:56am
]
balunasj
:
legacy CDK tag checks
[
10:56am
]
balunasj
:
Client API reviews
[
10:56am
]
balunasj
:
etc...
[
10:56am
]
balunasj
:
We'll need to take them offline I think.
[
10:56am
]
balunasj
:
The primary requirement of this topic imo - is that
[
10:57am
]
balunasj
:
before we move to BETA we need a defined process for moving 3.3.X component to 4.0 so that the migration of components can start in full swing
[
10:57am
]
balunasj
:
starting with the first BETA release.
[
10:57am
]
balunasj
:
So these would be the steps ( perhaps defined in a parent jira )
[
10:58am
]
balunasj
:
that developers can use while migrating.
[
10:58am
]
balunasj
:
for example the semantic review sub-task can be assigned to Lex, while the Review functional tests sub-tasks belong to QE
[
10:58am
]
balunasj
:
etc...
[
10:58am
]
balunasj
:
So for each migration we can see what stage it is at.
[
10:58am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
sounds good
[
10:59am
]
balunasj
:
that is what we need in place for release of A2 and before B1
[
10:59am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: can you please post the link to JIRA for review then?
[
11:00am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: you mean as part of the defined process, or the jira's related to the development of this process?
[
11:00am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: the second
[
11:00am
]
balunasj
:
I'll need to create jira's for tracking this task, and will need to spend some time on estimating.