Reply
Thread Tools
Framstag's Avatar
Posts: 72 | Thanked: 51 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Germany
#11
Originally Posted by qgil View Post
There must be a way to discern intended from buggy compromises in performance.

One thing is when one app of dedicated use takes a lot of CPU to perform an action understood and desired by the user (render a 3D graph) and another is to have some widget scrolling in such a buggy way that the system becomes sluggish.

And no matter what, Octave just paused in some inactive window should let the system work as usual, 5 minutes same as 5 days after booting the program.
While I do not question in anyway the requiremnt to prevent uncessary power consumption, I also have the feeling to the power consumption criteria needs a more detailed and precise formulation.

DiskUsage for example polls file system size around every 5 seconds and also does graphical refreshes. I assume that this should be avoided if the application is not active and thus can be seen as blocker. From the developer view however I need a clear definition of "active" in this case. I remember a discussion exactly about this topic in the developer mailing list. I havn't yet time to check if there is now a documentation about that (that does not focus on use Gtk and it will make it right) that possibly should even be linked in this case.

WifiInfo on the other hand also polls network information in the background. user feedback for the N810 showed that battery will last around 2-3 hours in such mode, so polling should be avoided for a deactive application, too, and current behaviour is likely a blocker, too. On the other hand there is a new wardriving mode, that creates sounds if a open network is detected and it is intended to have this on even while the application is not active. So battery drain is a also intended consequence. I hope this will not stop the application from getting into extras in future. I also have no problem to warn the user once about this mode using a module dialog or similar. I just would like to have a clearification of such handling before I upload it to extras-testing and get lost in various upload iterations and discussions :-)

Since power management is a very difficult topic also for the devloper I would suggest to add as much cross reference regarding testing on my own and technical solutions to definition of "active" and similar, perhaps build a wiki page on its own for this topic (which did not exist the last time I looked).

Gruß...Tim

Last edited by Framstag; 2009-10-23 at 12:05.
 
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,062 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#12
Originally Posted by Framstag View Post
While I do not question in anyway the requiremnt to prevent uncessary power consumption, I also have the feeling to the power consumption criteria needs a more detailed and precise formulation.
Definitely, but you know a lot more than me so please edit the wiki page providing more details. Without fear.

I have been editing the neighbor pages and now the should be no overlaps:

http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras
http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing
http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist
http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-devel

Please have a look to these pages since there are many details needing a bit more tuning.
 
Jaffa's Avatar
Posts: 2,531 | Thanked: 6,638 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#13
My thoughts, reposted from maemo-developers:

Originally Posted by me
The first half doesn't seem to be a checklist - but an introduction to
"Extras Testing". Testers (and developers) should have short bullet
points - perhaps even a table?

It does seem to be a good document for an *introduction* to QA &
testing, but I wouldn't say it was the checklist itself. Does that
make sense?
Quim, are you still working on these/have a plan or are you happy for someone else to dive in and start refactoring? (Not that it'd be me necessarily, busy weekend and software development is currently taking priority)
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,062 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#14
Any help is welcomed. I probably won't touch it during the weekend.
 
tekojo's Avatar
Posts: 148 | Thanked: 484 times | Joined on Nov 2008
#15
Originally Posted by Andre Klapper View Post
Tero (I think) started dumping his thoughts at http://wiki.maemo.org/Talk:Extras-testing already - would be good to merge them.
Thanks for the reminder!
I put in stubs for testing tools and started waiting for the test tools documentation to come to the wiki. Then got interrupted with something else and put ideas to the talk: page.
 
Posts: 12 | Thanked: 5 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Oulu, Finland
#16
I've been using powertop and strace to check CPU activity (power usage).

http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/powertop.php
http://wiki.maemo.org/Documentation/.../maemo5/strace
 

The Following User Says Thank You to rusti For This Useful Post:
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,062 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#17
The QA Checklist is basically a checklist now, as per Jaffa's request. The rest of the beef has been moved to the Extras-testing page.

I have started adding the very basic hints and pointers to each blocker in the QA Checklist in order to help developers and testers evaluating the quality of the software. I'm not a developer and not even a good tester myself, so please help adding useful details *there*. Thank you!
 

The Following User Says Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post:
Jaffa's Avatar
Posts: 2,531 | Thanked: 6,638 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#18
Trying to open up the discussion about the rules with the actual developers who'll have to meet them:

http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...er/021797.html

Hopefully my handy set of bullet points suitably captures the intent of the QA list (and I agree with Attila's points too; "risk" is a vague word ;-))
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
Posts: 2,803 | Thanked: 4,469 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#19
Hm, I just noticed an interesting loophole. So, while "free" packages in extras-testing have to wait for at least x days and x karma, "non-free" ones can skip the whole QA process and go straight to extras. Is it just me or is something very wrong here?
 
qgil's Avatar
Posts: 3,105 | Thanked: 11,062 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Mountain View (CA, USA)
#20
Note that those instructions haven't been updated since Diablo. I'd say the non-free apps also go to the extras-testing QA queue.

http://repository.maemo.org/extras-t...ntle/non-free/
 
Reply

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:46.