[SailfishDevel] Harbour QA process...

Reto Zingg reto.zingg at jolla.com
Fri Jan 10 08:45:11 UTC 2014


Hi,

On 10.01.2014 10:36, Ruediger Gad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree as well.
> Having a quicker way to check at least simple requirements would greatly
> improve the developer experience as well as the work of the testers at
> Harbour.
> I filed a request about this at together.jolla.com:
> https://together.jolla.com/question/13023/harbour-toolautomatism-for-quickly-checking-simple-compliance-requirements/

That's a duplicate request... see current answer here:

https://together.jolla.com/question/1593/integrate-qa-testing-scripts-with-sailfish-sdk/#post-id-8663

br
Reto


> This is not intended as complaint but as a request to improve things.
> I think, having a quicker way to check compliance would not only benefit
> us developers but would also ease the work of the testers at Harbour as
> they would not need to complain about simple "standard" issues that often.
>
> Besides, I just got an app rejected again (after about two days) because
> I missed one path that was not according to the XDG requirements.
> Yeah, I know, I should have looked more thoroughly (I actually grepped
> through all my sources but somehow still managed to miss that one
> thing.) but in that case a tool that I could run or a pre-check that is
> run automatically after uploading an *.rpm to Harbour would have been great.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ruediger
>
>
>
>
> On 01/10/2014 09:01 AM, Andreas Enbacka wrote:
>> I would like to agree with Franck on this. I have also partly held off
>> developing for SailfishOS due to e.g., the Harbour process, as well as
>> due to APIs my apps need to are not allowed. I think that in case Jolla
>> wants developers to focus on developing native apps for SailfishOS, many
>> improvments are needed in this area.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andreas Enbacka
>>
>> On 10.1.2014 9:57, Franck Routier (perso) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> currently, the Harbour QA process is quite frustrating, as problems
>> are reported one after the other, with a delay of several days
>> inbetween... reminds me of the old time cobol compilators!
>>
>> It would be cool if the efforts made by the developper to provide free
>> native application were a bit more considered.
>>
>> Ok, I'm talking out of frustration, but I had my app rejected first
>> because of naming conventions of the app itself (I didn't properly
>> read the FAQ, but it is not stated either in the app submission page
>> of Harbour), delay of 7 days, then because of rmp file naming
>> convention (which I did not find clearly stated except in the
>> rejection notification - 5 more days). Now I am waiting for next step
>> (2 days for now...)
>>
>> I understand this is a lot of work, but what I suggest is :
>> - more controls and more information in the app submission page
>> (testing the naming conventions of at least the files seems trivial)
>> - when doing QA, report all problems at once, not just the first one
>> - maybe provide a QA tool so that developpers could do this job and
>> let jolla teams concentrate on real QA (power consumption, security
>> checks, ...)
>>
>> Hope this does not sound too demanding...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Franck
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list
>



More information about the Devel mailing list