16 replies to this topic

[amalux]

Wouldn't it be nice if there was place we could go for clear simple examples of script syntax like here or to ask questions about it like here? There's no need for a 'test plan' if syntax rules are known, results are reproducible and clear documentation exists for it usage.

[Brito]

This topic was originally split from here to allow exploring the need or not for a test plan:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=93132

Wouldn't it be nice if there was place we could go for clear simple examples of script syntax

The documentation is simple and has examples: http://winbuilder.ne...x.html#FileCopy

ask questions about it like here?

http://www.boot-land...php?showforum=7 (wb development)
http://www.boot-land...hp?showforum=33 (wb support)

We've had these two resources for years, yet bugs still appear.

There's no need for a 'test plan' if syntax rules are known, results are reproducible and clear documentation exists for it usage.

I'll give the example of the proposed tests for filecopy (which is a basic wb operation):
- check if it is working in very long directory names
- test if it is working with space on the name of folders
- test how it will react to the cases where no source file is found
- test the cases where it has no permissions to write on the target folder.
- test what happens if the target folder has no more disk space
- test overwrite of files (and possible switches)

Then I'll ask. You make a change somewhere, how do you guarantee that everything works like before? Will you manually check all the syntax rules by writing and running them on the code box?

Are you going to repeat the same syntax rules when applied to long folders, different user permissions and special conditions when there is not enough space or files that are not found?

Writing test cases is a known practice in large scale software:

In software development, a test suite, less commonly known as a validation suite, is a collection of test cases that are intended to be used to test a software program to show that it has some specified set of behaviours. A test suite often contains detailed instructions or goals for each collection of test cases and information on the system configuration to be used during testing. A group of test cases may also contain prerequisite states or steps, and descriptions of the following tests.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Test_suite

WinBuilder is a complex software, we cannot afford to continue discovering bugs only after each release or make superficial testing judgments and say that everything is fine.

Having a test plan along with a test project will allow to automatically test if a given winbuilder command is working as expected or not and even compare the results of this test to previous winbuilder and this way see accurately what has changed or not.

[Lancelot]

Wouldn't it be nice if there was place we could go for clear simple examples of script syntax like here or to ask questions about it like here? There's no need for a 'test plan' if syntax rules are known, results are reproducible and clear documentation exists for it usage.

Welcome to the team of "moved posts" amalux.

as an answer to topic: no
and I already agree with your statement.

Very well written by Jaclaz here.

We need something "containing complex and critical syntax".

What for?

The new "guidelines" have been set by Nuno:
http://www.boot-land...?...10702&st=36

That's the reason why winbuilder.exe is putting an halt to all the advanced functionality that is only used by one or two .script developers. It became very difficult to maintain and it will require time to mature in terms of logical coherency.

Why one should test "advanced" functionalities that he/she is EITHER:

• asked NOT to use
• have no guarantee of any kind they will be supported (not that they are currently or have been in the past)

So, if we are talking about "basic" functionalities just §@ç#ing run ANY project (idea: LiveXP ) and call it "test" project.

Otherwise, FIRST update Syntax Rules, and then I am sure a lot of people will find ways to test them.

In peterish :

Syntax=basement

Test project=roof

Or, if you have your own Test project, use it and be happy.

The current plot:

• Syntax is changed
• Syntax description/help page/checklist/whatever is NOT updated
• .script writers start whining that what they presume being correct syntax is not working
• winbuilder developers reply either:
  
• nothing
• that this is by design
• that the proposed syntax is OBVIOUSLY wrong, implying that the .script developer is out of date, or dumb, or both

The expected "logical" plot:

• Syntax is changed
• Possibly a logical reason for the change is given
• Syntax description/help page/checklist/whatever is updated
• .script writers READ the New Syntax BEFORE start reporting WITHOUT whining that what they presume being correct syntax is not working
• winbuilder developers reply either:
  
• something actually addressing the issue
• that this is by design AND was announced and made explicit in the description/help page/checklist/whatever
• that the proposed syntax is wrong, NOT implying that the .script developer is out of date, or dumb, or both

After all not such a number of changes.

I agree with PSC's perspective.

Which one, the one he is currently showing or the one in his signature?

Lancelot, either help the other guys writing a test project for the syntax that you would like to see improved or please stop cluttering this topic.

Just out of curiosity, being none of my business , can you name 5 (five) of the other guys currently writing a test project (and no, Lancelot and Galapo do not count ).

Anyway, Lancelot, my personal advice: take it easy, you can show your utter and complete disagreement with whatever, but you can do it in a softer tone.




Wonko

but sadly development only hears itsself.

Further what will happen:
*like we know from our previous experiences, script syntax will change hence test project (remember nativeex_b as a test project changing with every wb release)
*It seems tolerating quotes are still applied to lower down the voices but IN fact it is well written in syntax rules winbuilder does not tolerate quotes.
As a result in one release you will see your quoted syntaxes either start to give warnings or malfunction and when you ask on a topic you will get an answer "Read syntax rules". Related rules are written the day wb080 written and the day it is noticed (written silently 19-02 , noticed 08-03 , well as quick as we can )) it is requested widely by Galapo and Me to get this bully quote rule which cause medusa issues out of syntax rule hence replied politically.

Honestly amalux, no hope left. In time you will see that you will need more and more double ## and triple ### escapes to make things work (ps: double and triple and if exists tetra quotes not written on script rules yet but sure it will) which will make script writing from easy to a escape jungle.
Besides, when you need a tetra quote, this means you make tetris and get bonus

And yes, when time moves slowly, you will see all these syntaxes in test project and syntax rules changing which will be replied you or anyone with "it is in syntax rules, it is in test project".
As a result your batch template examples if done with wb sadly if created today will not work tomorrow.
I hope now you understand our concerns about these "born silently" rules.

As quick as we notice rules written silently opposing to public agreement
ps: maybe you also remember quotes are allowed so far and written many times on topics one can write "Hi Amalux, how are you?" between quotes.

We tried to make things right for ALL's benefits, sadly you see the replies we get and the result. I truely exhausted with not getting honest replies and re-replying false accusations.



Wait & see , have fun

[amalux]

It's very sad for me to see this 'war in the heavens' continue , it has taken some time to fully understand what you (and others) have been saying but I'm starting to get it now

Welcome to the team of "moved posts" amalux.

[Galapo]

It's very sad for me to see this 'war in the heavens' continue , it has taken some time to fully understand what you (and others) have been saying but I'm starting to get it now

Excellent! That gives me some hope! This is the reason why Lancelot and I have kept posting on the issue, even though it has been damaging to our reputations.

It's been two years of unstable syntax and we're still in no better position than two years ago. Peter again wants to dramatically alter the acceptable syntax by removing the tolerance for quotes (and hence as a result, even though this may be not what he intends, the legibility of scripts and ease of use etc.). Lancelot and I can see that now is the time to raise some voices against this before Peter gets his way and ###$c becomes the order of the day rather than the exception. We'd like some sense restored to WB syntax, that's all.

Glad you can see that this is the issue!

Regards,
Galapo.

[Brito]

The problem is going off-topic way too many times and getting topics filled with everything except the topic that needs to be discussed.

The question raised by Amalux is:

Do we need a test plan for winbuilder?

I already written the reasons why I believe it is important, other authors also expressed the same feeling: http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=92836

---------------

This is the reason why Lancelot and I have kept posting on the issue

Yes, thank you for creating multiple posting across several topics and none specifically related to your quest.

Lancelot and I can see that now is the time to raise some voices against this before Peter gets his way and ###$c becomes the order of the day rather than the exception. We'd like some sense restored to WB syntax, that's all.

You guys never listen anyone.

If you're quoting me, also quote this from today:

My advice is focus.

Contribute to build our test project, get active on the writing of our documentation. Start new topics to voice your opinion against the change of something when the wb developers wants to go in another direction and you think that other developer will join your opinion.

Whatever you do, just remember to avoid mixing different issues in the same bag because otherwise it will become a mess. You won't be listening to what other guys are saying nor be heard or remembered since the off-topic comments quickly fade from memory or aren't read by a significant number of people to see them.

http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94419

Thank you for not reading.

Sometime I don't really know why I bother to write and try to explain how things can get done or discussed properly.

[Lancelot]

Above is a typical example from Nuno we get these days,

He does not answer the question or request and forces us to reply (again and again.. sometimes same....) his distractive comments again. No thanks Nuno, We are doing that so far 4 5 days.

These replies mainly serves psc's goal of easly changing syntax rules whenever he wants for any reason in future. Hence his goal of changing rules silently remains uncommented by Nuno again serving him everyday to say "This is winbuilder syntax rule valid for XX days/weeks/months/etc."

Do we need a test plan for winbuilder ? We already see how "forum post tactics" and "silent syntax updates" and newly "behind door test project (unpublic)" being held. We clearly know (and it was clearly written in my previous post) Such a test plan does not serve amalux's first post goals

Well done Nuno for doing and discussing things properly.

Simply: Current topic is "Do we need a test plan for winbuilder?" and I replied with giving reasons from results of all topics runed around.

Sadly now I re-reply to Nuno's post. But this time obeying topic rule and shortly re-writing same un answered concerns.

[Galapo]

Yes, thank you for creating multiple posting across several topics and none specifically related to your quest.

Well, thank you for misrepresenting us. Contrary to your assertion -- which is not backed up by any evidence -- our posts have indeed been related to our quest to have some common sense restored to accepted WB syntax. I've summarised here: http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94458.

If you're quoting me, also quote this from today:

http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94419

Thank you for not reading.

Well, thank you for not a) understanding the current state of accepted syntax of WB; and b) continue to post on off-topic side issues which deflect attention from the real issue of 1) Peter's move to again implement a no-quote accepting WB syntax and 2) the issue of sensibility in scripting and trying to get back to an easier syntax for all to understand and use.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Brito]

Well done Nuno for doing and discussing things properly.

This is an unfair remark. I've always worked to take into consideration as much as possible all your requests in the past. All that I'm asking now is that you get organized with Galapo and start a new topic and properly promote it.

If you want to prevent changes that you consider incorrect then you need to mobilize more developers and properly expose your arguments. Instead of diverting other topics to your grudges with PSC (and now me), try to concentrate them all in a single topic.

Well, thank you for not a) understanding the current state of accepted syntax of WB; and continue to post on off-topic side issues which deflect attention from the real issue of 1) Peter's move to again implement a no-quote accepting WB syntax and 2) the issue of sensibility in scripting and trying to get back to an easier syntax for all to understand and use.

And the off-topic quest continues..

[Lancelot]

And the off-topic quest continues..

Why are you posting off topic post here ???? if you open a new topic with your previous post would't it better, why you choose that way !!

This is an unfair remark. I've always worked to take into consideration as much as possible all your requests in the past.

yes, that is what personally made me very sad. Besides we never asked for "inpossible" or "selfish" requests. As far as I am concerned, I remember my requests not for my personal goals, but to help public more easly. Remembering the things I've been accused so far, this is not fair.

try to concentrate them all in a single topic.

We did it at first place before you scatter all posts to different topics. Than I follow your advice and open ignored topic, than now you ask us to gather all in a single topic.

All that I'm asking now is that you get organized with Galapo and start a new topic and properly promote it.

How many more topics do you need in order not get answer to our honest questions from you ???

you need to mobilize more developers and properly expose your arguments.

Aren't you aware what is going on around with these years. People who reply any topic with knowing this is against psc with anyway, either distracted, or ignored, or humilated, or added to "personal ignorance category of psc", or........... Use your memory. They live through things we are more deeply living through these days which is the goal of this philophy, "divide & break into peaces". This as a result gets its goals, after so many years we do not have developers that express their feelings. All people around well know if they want to make a request in future, better to keep silence.

I advice you to move your post and my current post to a topic "Nuno's questions and answers", since you distract topic title it will be more proper to be done by you. Besides no important to me at all, up to you.

And again not answering any of concerns by a distractive post. Thanks again.

[Brito]

Why are you posting off topic post here ?

Because if I try to split the topic then I'll be accused of trying to scatter topics everywhere instead of allowing off-topic discussions to continue.

btw: Since you've began writing here, where are your comments related to:
Do we need a test plan for winbuilder?

We did it at first place before you scatter all posts to different topics.

Whichever topic you see being discussed here today is a good purpose to discuss commas, my only reason to split discussions is to keep the topic focused around a single matter.

With some luck, I was really hoping to read valid reasons for not implementing a test plan for winbuilder either from Amalux himself or from you and other developers.

--------------------

Instead, all we get are your comments that any attempts are flawed and failed from the start and that something regarding commas needs to be done or it will be the end of world because there is no more secret (magic, hidden, ..) agreement or someone lied, or someone has a plot with a magic potion to only silence opposing voices and so forth.

Then comes Galapo assuring that victory is close by and that more voices need to be raised.

And the off-topic quest continues to divert the initial topic of this discussion a bit more..


Are there any reasons (non-comma) related that are worth considering for not making available a test plan for winbuilder?

[Lancelot]

Because if I try to split the topic then I'll be accused of trying to scatter topics everywhere instead of allowing off-topic discussions to continue.

Thanks again scattering topic discussion to off topic, and starting off topic discussion on current topic.

btw: Since you've began writing here, where are your comments related to:
Do we need a test plan for winbuilder?

my first post on current topic (post 3)

Are there any reasons (non-comma) related that are worth considering for not making available a test plan for winbuilder?

either you did not read my first post on current topic, or you pretend not read. Besides same things written before only gathered for the reply of the question of current post.

Reminding history of my current topic presence:
post3: Replying current topic question and with detailed explanations and if you read you will notice my comments are not only about comma
post7: replying Nuno's post 6 within the limits of current topic goals
post10: replying Nuno's post 9 untopic post hence with another untopic post
post12: replying Nuno's post 11 untopic post hence with another untopic post + false accusation

ps: it is same story at all topics, that is the reason Nuno's replies are predicatable, we reply Nuno's posts but we do not get reply to our concerns.

it will be the end of world because there is no more secret (magic, hidden, ..) agreement or someone lied, or someone has a plot with a magic potion to only silence opposing voices and so forth.

written MANY MANY MANY times before, there is NO magic hidden ... agreement. Why do you pretend not getting same answers and make me write same things again and again. Even again I wrote here post 50 some hours ago and again gettin this absolutely FALSE accusation.

I believe goal is making circles hence filling topics with posts which as a result you will write "We opened topics, we discussed but you did not work cooperative" !! where you wrote nothing about what we asked but made us make circles. Thanks a lot Nuno.

further, reminding (since I notice you frequently forget) I leave task to open a new topic to Galapo with given reasons.

again thanks a lot.


@amalux:
If you ask a set of posts moved from topic to another newly created topic. Just give me post numbers and the place where you like them to be moved with giving name to topic title.

[patsch]

I'm not a good programmer but what I've learned so far:
1.) if I work on a project I first create my test routines
2.) if the tests are made (black-box, white-box, grey-box-testing or whatever fulfills the needs) then the work on the real project can start
3.) if the project works on the tests, a documentation can be written

what I've seen here is:
- a basic syntax was given (see documentation)
- but a few script writers wanted to have an expanded functionality in case that the scripts could not be implemented with the given tools.
- the results are some problems in the syntax and bugfixing and now we have this mud-wrestling here that is not useful at all (and for me as an person that is not involved in project writing/developing, an "outstander", very terrifying and deterrent)

My 2 cents:
- write test routines (like Nuno stated) in the way: simple commands and the needed output
- test it with an actual winbuilder version
- discuss if changes are needed in case the tests do not fulfill
- and then write a docu
after this is done with the basic commands this can be extended

If only have the time is spent in creating such test scripts than in ruminate all these posts (with partial nonsense) the project would be rather finished

[Galapo]

further, reminding (since I notice you frequently forget) I leave task to open a new topic to Galapo with given reasons.

Well, seems little point in doing so. I tried to focus the issue, but Nuno continues to post offtopic and on side issues: http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94506.

Hope lost I guess. We tried. Personally, I don't have any more time available to continue the debate so that maybe -- just maybe -- some common sense to WB scripting might be provided for by WB development.

We'll have to just let Peter have his way with WB to continue his vendetta against quotes.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Galapo]

My 2 cents:
- write test routines (like Nuno stated) in the way: simple commands and the needed output

You know, that's actually useless if basic WB syntax is going to be changed again so that use of quotes won't be accepted as acceptable syntax.

No use even working on a test project until we know what is accepted and not accepted syntax.

Regards,
Galapo.

[patsch]

You know, that's actually useless if basic WB syntax is going to be changed again so that use of quotes won't be accepted as acceptable syntax.

No use even working on a test project until we know what is accepted and not accepted syntax.

I wrote what is the normal way working on projects (not only for me at university but also in programming incs that I know):
1.) write test routines
2.) work on the project
3.) verfiy the project with the test routines

the way you will handle it is only bugfixing

[Galapo]

I wrote what is the normal way working on projects (not only for me at university but also in programming incs that I know):
1.) write test routines
2.) work on the project
3.) verfiy the project with the test routines

Yep, I know and I agree in principle. Trouble is, we can't get to your point number 1 yet because we don't know what the acceptable test routines are. Peter plan is to fundamentally alter the test routines. This will render any test routines we write today useless unless we reach agreement about the routines themselves.

Regards,
Galapo.