[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"
- Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"
- From: Miklos Vajna <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:27:46 +0200
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> a) (Completeness of the specification) Isn't it appropriate to assign the right Version of LibO and the UNO API to it, at least what is the version
> (or with what LibO Version delivered) the "WatchCode"-Implementation should be used for the UI work? Which version of the XRAY and MRI tool is here
> relevant, at least say "the latest" with a hint for a source for them.
I think the idea is that the work is developed on LibreOffice master, so
it gets released in the next major version after the work is done. This
is how all previous tenders were delivered. The result is part of
LibreOffice itself, so specifying a LibreOffice version adds no value.
XRAY and MRI are just examples of what's possible for an inspection
tool, so I would consider their version as not relevant.
> b) (Feature request) I miss this great feature to have a code autocompletion, for example in VS you can set the "." as referenciator and that get the
> possible services or DOM Tree alternatives or... and also complete the parameter part when hitting return (or is this meant with the Copy & Paste feature?)
My understanding is that we currently provide no good autocompletion
APIs, and such an inspection tool would build on top of it. If you add
autocompletion to the scope, it can easily double the amount of needed
work, so I would carefully avoid that.
> c) (Completeness of the specification) It is mentioned, that "everywhere where possible" to lean on automatic testing. Well, to be honest, this is a
> huge field. Shouldn't we specify this a little bit more in detail, what we do expect here? Are there automatic test tools we are already using which
> we want to see or for which we want to have the automation scripts or ...?
I believe the current wording was used for previous tenders already,
without problems. The idea is that whenever a sub-task is done
(something gets fixed or implemented), it should be considered to add a
test for it. It's hard to specify this more than this: if you add
quantity requirements, then it's easy to add a lot of useless tests, and
it's not easy to measure test quality with numbers. :-)
I would prefer a reasonable amount of good tests, rather than a lot of
useless tests. The effort needed to add tests is also different for each
& every case: sometimes it's a shame that a test is not added, sometimes
it would be a heroic effort to cover some behavior with an automated
> d) (Details in the proposal) I would also expect a detailed estimation in the sense that it is not just a figure but at least one for each mentioned
> feature in the mandatory as well as in the optional part. If they are proposing other features (not mentioned here) they should do it as well with a
> figure for it. Is it mentioned anywhere?
It is possible it's hard to compare proposals if the proposals have
optional features. One consistent way is to asssume you order / not
order everything optional. I imagine if the proposal is detailed enough,
there is a brief description of each sub-task, how it would be done --
then you can get the impression at the end that the bidder did their
homework, and the number at the bottom of the offer is not just a
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
|Re: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"||Florian Effenberger <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Next by Date: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Previous by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"
- Next by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"