Menu
▾
▴
fofredux-devel
|
From: Miles B. <mil...@gm...> - 2006-04-11 05:04:55
|
I'd like to verify the fix for the "mark as read" problem. Could someone send me the new files? Anonymouse cvs still has not been updated and the snapshot build appears to be old as well. Thanks, -Miles |
|
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2006-04-11 17:33:45
|
> I'd like to verify the fix for the "mark as read" problem. Could > someone send me the new files? > > Anonymouse cvs still has not been updated and the snapshot build > appears to be old as well. Are you referring to the "mark as unread" problem? The snapshot for 4/9 has the change that Andrew made.. --=20 Kevin |
|
From: Miles B. <mil...@gm...> - 2006-04-11 17:50:34
|
On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > Are you referring to the "mark as unread" problem? The snapshot for 4/9 > has the change that Andrew made.. Hm, I downloaded and installed the 4/9 snapshot yesterday and assumed it was not an updated snapshot as the "mark as unread" function does not work for me. Here is a directory listing with the 4/9 date on them. Is this correct? 2006-04-09 07:00 lib 2006-04-09 07:00 adodb_lite 2006-04-09 07:00 magpierss 2006-04-09 07:00 rsswriter 2006-04-09 07:00 tests |
|
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2006-04-11 18:09:41
|
> On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: >> Are you referring to the "mark as unread" problem? The snapshot for >> 4/9 >> has the change that Andrew made.. > > Hm, I downloaded and installed the 4/9 snapshot yesterday and assumed > it was not an updated snapshot as the "mark as unread" function does > not work for me. > > Here is a directory listing with the 4/9 date on them. Is this correct? > > 2006-04-09 07:00 lib > 2006-04-09 07:00 adodb_lite > 2006-04-09 07:00 magpierss > 2006-04-09 07:00 rsswriter > 2006-04-09 07:00 tests That's right. It more has to do with the revision Id in the files.=20 init.php revision 1.60 and above has the fix. Question: When you tried out the 4/9 snapshot. Did it not work in the *exact same way*, or was the result different then previous version? --=20 Kevin |
|
From: Miles B. <mil...@gm...> - 2006-04-11 18:16:18
|
On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > That's right. It more has to do with the revision Id in the files. > init.php revision 1.60 and above has the fix. Well, I verified that my init.php is 1.60. > Question: When you tried out the 4/9 snapshot. Did it not work in the > *exact same way*, or was the result different then previous version? The result was the same. I did the same steps I did before and the item does not show up as unread. Below are the steps I used when I first noticed the problem. 1. From the panel view I clicked on the link (1 new) which is opening "view.php?feed=3D34". 2. Mark the item as read by clicking "Flag all Items" then click "Mark as read", then click on the panel link. 3. Click on the link that has all the articles for that feed "view.php?feed=3D34&what=3Dall". 4. Select the checkbox for the item I marked as read previously and then click the "Mark as Unread" checkbox. 5. Click on the Panel link and I should see the article that I marked as unread but I don't see anything new. It shows (0 new) with no hyperlink active. |
|
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2006-04-12 00:38:57
|
> On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: >> That's right. It more has to do with the revision Id in the files. >> init.php revision 1.60 and above has the fix. > > Well, I verified that my init.php is 1.60. > >> Question: When you tried out the 4/9 snapshot. Did it not work in t= he >> *exact same way*, or was the result different then previous version? > > The result was the same. I did the same steps I did before and the > item does not show up as unread. > > Below are the steps I used when I first noticed the problem. > > 1. From the panel view I clicked on the link (1 new) which is opening > "view.php?feed=3D34". > 2. Mark the item as read by clicking "Flag all Items" then click "Mark > as read", then click on the panel link. > 3. Click on the link that has all the articles for that feed > "view.php?feed=3D34&what=3Dall". > 4. Select the checkbox for the item I marked as read previously and > then click the "Mark as Unread" checkbox. > 5. Click on the Panel link and I should see the article that I marked > as unread but I don't see anything new. It shows (0 new) with no > hyperlink active. This is corrected in RC-0_3. I've refreshed the tar file in the snapshot= s directory.=20 http://fofredux.sourceforge.net/snapshots/fofredux-RC-0_3.tar.gz --=20 Kevin |
|
From: Miles B. <mil...@gm...> - 2006-04-12 01:07:10
|
On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > This is corrected in RC-0_3. I've refreshed the tar file in the snapshot= s > directory. > http://fofredux.sourceforge.net/snapshots/fofredux-RC-0_3.tar.gz I just downloaded and installed it. It does indeed fix this. Thanks, -Miles |
|
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2006-04-12 01:31:01
|
> On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: >> This is corrected in RC-0_3. I've refreshed the tar file in the >> snapshots >> directory. >> http://fofredux.sourceforge.net/snapshots/fofredux-RC-0_3.tar.gz > > I just downloaded and installed it. It does indeed fix this. I think that's the last show stopper. Can we get this darn thing release= d now? ;) --=20 Kevin |
|
From: Andrew T. (nilspace) <nil...@us...> - 2006-04-12 12:03:44
|
Well, I was still dealing w/ my annoying and unreproducable problem. I'm willing to put forth that it's something weird in my system/setup that I'm somehow not catching, if no one else sees that problem. I actually just caught a bug dealing w/ what files from Head were moved up to 0.3 and not. Init.php had an update to how it parsed opml files, but add.php wasn't migrated to the 0.3 tag as well which handled these changes. Therefore, importing an OPML file would always fail. This was a shortcoming on my part to mark which files should move forward. What do we do in the future to mark files on HEAD that need to be moved to a new RC? Here are the prescribed tests for future releases. Install: 1) Install new from scratch 2) Upgrade System from previous version (at least previous, further back is good too) 3) Uninstall Setup 1) Add single feed of type: RSS 0.92, RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, Atom 2) Add feed of html page that uses auto-discovery 3) Add invalid feed (html page, non-existing page, etc.) and verify error message 4) Add categories 5) Add feeds with selected categories 6) Export OPML file - verify that url, name, categories are written for all feed items 7) Import OPML file (with and without categories) Panel: 1) Edit a feed, change category, url, name, location, tags, auto-update & verify these changes took effect 2) Edit a category - verify change took effect 3) Delete a category- make sure feeds of that category changed to "None" 4) Set options for number of feeds, server time offset, etc. 5) Create and remove tags View (both full page and framed): 1) Verify all buttons in menu work as expected: e.g. 2) View new items - verify they are paged, in the correct order, only unread items are shown 3) View all items 4) View category 5) View individual feed 6) Tag an item, remove the tag 7) Save an item, view saved feeds, unsave item 8) Mark an item as read, verify it doesn't show up in new 9) View all items, and mark items as unread - verify they show up in "new i= tems" 10) View feeds by a tag 11) Use "flag up to" to mark items as read 12) Mark all items as read/unread 13) Verify that all other links in a feed item work (name, category, in-item links) 14) view "Old to new" and "new to old" Other: 1) Search from the panel - all feeds should be searched 2) Search within a view, only feeds in that view should be searched 3) "Previous" and "next" within a search stays within a search Ok - I think that covers things in a rough way. I've tested most of these (as I wrote them), There were several bugs in passing the order and paging through the various nav links. These have been fixed and tagged to RC-0_3. In fact, the keeping of parameters from one view to the next seems odd, as *all* possible parameters will show up even if they don't have values. This should be addressed in the next version. Anyways, there are some changes in the RC, mostly the nav links discussed above. I also moved in the highlighting search and OPML changes that needed to be there to fix the current RC0.3 and brought in the cool "yellow" feature. :) I feel good about the release now and think we should go ahead and bundle it up and SHIP! Let me know if anyone has any immediate issues, or gives the thumbs up to v= 0.3 Andrew On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > > > On 4/11/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > >> This is corrected in RC-0_3. I've refreshed the tar file in the > >> snapshots > >> directory. > >> http://fofredux.sourceforge.net/snapshots/fofredux-RC-0_3.tar.gz > > > > I just downloaded and installed it. It does indeed fix this. > > I think that's the last show stopper. Can we get this darn thing release= d > now? ;) > > > -- > Kevin > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting langua= ge > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webc= ast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territor= y! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=110944&bid$1720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Fofredux-devel mailing list > Fof...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fofredux-devel > -- Andrew Turner ajt...@hi... 42.4266N x 83.4931W http://highearthorbit.com Northville, Michigan, USA |
|
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...> - 2006-04-12 15:34:55
|
> Well, I was still dealing w/ my annoying and unreproducable problem. > I'm willing to put forth that it's something weird in my system/setup > that I'm somehow not catching, if no one else sees that problem. > > I actually just caught a bug dealing w/ what files from Head were > moved up to 0.3 and not. Init.php had an update to how it parsed opml > files, but add.php wasn't migrated to the 0.3 tag as well which > handled these changes. Therefore, importing an OPML file would always > fail. This was a shortcoming on my part to mark which files should > move forward. What do we do in the future to mark files on HEAD that > need to be moved to a new RC? In subversion, which I hope we are migrated to before the next release,=20 each tag is a complete copy of trunk. This will hopefully eliminate the problem of mismatched file tags. In general, I don't like the idea of moving tags. If you want to update = a release candidate, then that is a new RC tag. RC2-0_3, etc. What you ar= e doing with the RC tag should be accomplished with a branch. > Here are the prescribed tests for future releases. > Install: > 1) Install new from scratch > 2) Upgrade System from previous version (at least previous, further > back is good too) > 3) Uninstall > > Setup > 1) Add single feed of type: RSS 0.92, RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, Atom > 2) Add feed of html page that uses auto-discovery > 3) Add invalid feed (html page, non-existing page, etc.) and verify > error message > 4) Add categories > 5) Add feeds with selected categories > 6) Export OPML file - verify that url, name, categories are written > for all feed items > 7) Import OPML file (with and without categories) > > Panel: > 1) Edit a feed, change category, url, name, location, tags, > auto-update & verify these changes took effect > 2) Edit a category - verify change took effect > 3) Delete a category- make sure feeds of that category changed to "None= " > 4) Set options for number of feeds, server time offset, etc. > 5) Create and remove tags > > View (both full page and framed): > 1) Verify all buttons in menu work as expected: e.g. > 2) View new items - verify they are paged, in the correct order, only > unread items are shown > 3) View all items > 4) View category > 5) View individual feed > 6) Tag an item, remove the tag > 7) Save an item, view saved feeds, unsave item > 8) Mark an item as read, verify it doesn't show up in new > 9) View all items, and mark items as unread - verify they show up in "n= ew > items" > 10) View feeds by a tag > 11) Use "flag up to" to mark items as read > 12) Mark all items as read/unread > 13) Verify that all other links in a feed item work (name, category, > in-item links) > 14) view "Old to new" and "new to old" > > Other: > 1) Search from the panel - all feeds should be searched > 2) Search within a view, only feeds in that view should be searched > 3) "Previous" and "next" within a search stays within a search Looks good, how much of this can be accomplished with test cases, do you think? Anything that touches an init.php function, should be a candidate for automatic testing. > Ok - I think that covers things in a rough way. I've tested most of > these (as I wrote them), There were several bugs in passing the order > and paging through the various nav links. These have been fixed and > tagged to RC-0_3. In fact, the keeping of parameters from one view to > the next seems odd, as *all* possible parameters will show up even if > they don't have values. This should be addressed in the next version. I've thought of the idea of encapsulating all parameters that make up an item view into an object.(tags, feeds, categories, search term, flag, etc= ) That way, functions like fof_get_items() would be passed one parameter instead of 8. That said. It would be the item_view object's job to marshall/unmarshall query parameters for links. The item_view object would also represent a saveable search. > I feel good about the release now and think we should go ahead and > bundle it up and SHIP! > > Let me know if anyone has any immediate issues, or gives the thumbs up = to > v0.3 Yipee!! --=20 Kevin |
|
From: Andrew T. (nilspace) <nil...@us...> - 2006-04-12 16:41:23
|
On 4/12/06, Kevin <ke...@dr...> wrote: > > In subversion, which I hope we are migrated to before the next release, > each tag is a complete copy of trunk. This will hopefully eliminate the > problem of mismatched file tags. Yes, I would like us to move to Subversion for 0.4+ > In general, I don't like the idea of moving tags. If you want to update = a > release candidate, then that is a new RC tag. RC2-0_3, etc. What you ar= e > doing with the RC tag should be accomplished with a branch. You're definitely right - I'm a bad dev/release tech. > Looks good, how much of this can be accomplished with test cases, do you > think? Anything that touches an init.php function, should be a candidate > for automatic testing. Yes, there should be functional tests (calling init.php) but we can also investigate something like Selenium, which is a testing/IDE for doing UI testing of website. Supposedly (though I haven't verified), there is a Firefox plugin which you can set to record your actions as you click through a site. Then save these as a "Test" and replay them later. The idea is, I want to click several buttons, then verify the value of some of the HTML tags (they exist, hold certain values, etc.) This will be especially important when we incorporate Ajax elements. > I've thought of the idea of encapsulating all parameters that make up an > item view into an object.(tags, feeds, categories, search term, flag, etc= ) > That way, functions like fof_get_items() would be passed one parameter > instead of 8. That said. It would be the item_view object's job to > marshall/unmarshall query parameters for links. The item_view object > would also represent a saveable search. Good idea, though we don't want to create a struct for parameter simplicity sake. But having an object that represents a "View" that can then be serialized for saved queries is an excellent idea. We'll do this as part of pulling apart init.php into the UI, controller, and db interface parts. > > > I feel good about the release now and think we should go ahead and > > bundle it up and SHIP! > > > > Let me know if anyone has any immediate issues, or gives the thumbs up = to > > v0.3 > > Yipee!! > I'll take that as a thumbs-up from Kevin. Andrew -- Andrew Turner ajt...@hi... 42.4266N x 83.4931W http://highearthorbit.com Northville, Michigan, USA |
|
From: Miles B. <mil...@gm...> - 2006-04-12 16:49:44
|
On 4/12/06, Andrew Turner (nilspace) <nil...@us...> wrote= : > I feel good about the release now and think we should go ahead and > bundle it up and SHIP! > > Let me know if anyone has any immediate issues, or gives the thumbs up to > v0.3 I think we are ready now for 0.3 to be released. -Miles |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X