[SailfishDevel] Harbour QA process...

Ruediger Gad r.c.g at gmx.de
Fri Jan 10 08:48:07 UTC 2014


thanks, yeah, Kontio also commented on this and closed the request.
I actually searched before posting but didn't find that one.
Thanks again.



On 01/10/2014 09:45 AM, Reto Zingg wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> SailfishOS.org Devel mailing list


More information about the Devel mailing list