manny@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Manny (Emmanuel) Bagnas) (04/04/91)
Here's a stupid question: What sort of certification or validation tests are available for X11R4? I've seen a test suite on expo but it's in an alpha state. I'd also be interested in hearing from individuals who have provided X as a commercial product. Did you do any sort of validation or was it just, "Well, it runs... Let's ship it." adthanksvance manny.bagnas@sandiego.ncr.com | THE 90/90 LAW OF SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Manny Bagnas | The first 90% of the task takes the first NCR Corp, E&M San Diego | 90% of the time, and the remaining 10% of | the task takes the other 90%. manny.bagnas@sandiego.ncr.com | THE 90/90 LAW OF SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Manny Bagnas | The first 90% of the task takes the first NCR Corp, E&M San Diego | 90% of the time, and the remaining 10% of | the task takes the other 90%.
marra@samuel.enet.dec.com (Dave Marra) (04/04/91)
>Here's a stupid question: What sort of certification or validation >tests are available for X11R4? I've seen a test suite on expo but >it's in an alpha state. >I'd also be interested in hearing from individuals who have provided X >as a commercial product. Did you do any sort of validation or was >it just, "Well, it runs... Let's ship it." Both. Maybe. The test suite that ships on the tapes from MIT is pretty complete for exersicing the interface to R2 entry points. It is lacking in areas as well. It does a pretty complete job of testing the graphics portions (draw lines, arcs, etc..). Some of the tests still have bugs. But in general the tests are pretty good. UniSoft is finishing the suite and making it more of a complete validation suite. At DEC, a great deal of the testing comes in the form of usage. Internally there are thousands of users and applications that must work the way they did in the past. Hence bugs don't get too far. .dave.
ajm@seqp4.ORG (A.J.Madison) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr3.183121.20313@SanDiego.NCR.COM>, manny@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Manny (Emmanuel) Bagnas) writes: > Here's a stupid question: What sort of certification or validation > tests are available for X11R4? I've seen a test suite on expo but > it's in an alpha state. > > I'd also be interested in hearing from individuals who have provided X > as a commercial product. Did you do any sort of validation or was > it just, "Well, it runs... Let's ship it." > > adthanksvance > > manny.bagnas@sandiego.ncr.com I also would be interested in hearing about X testing experiences. Also, I am interested in anyone's experiences with the motif 1.0 test suite. It would appear that I am seeing a large number of variances from the documentation and wonder what is actually wrong. Finally, I have the same last interest, but for Motif, though perhaps the qualification criteria might be a little tighter, like, "Well, the whole department doesn't seem to be complaining about it... Let's ship it." --aj madison ajm@sequoia.com (maybe i'll get it, OR) -- when everyone is out to get you, being paranoid is just good thinking. - Dr. Johnny Fever <in other words, standard disclaimer> A.J. Madison ajm@seqp4@m2c.m2c.org@uunet Sequoia Systems Inc. seqp4!ajm@endor@das.harvard.edu
evans@decvax.DEC.COM (Marc Evans) (04/08/91)
In article <710@seqp4.UUCP>, ajm@seqp4.ORG (A.J.Madison) writes: |> In article <1991Apr3.183121.20313@SanDiego.NCR.COM>, manny@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Manny (Emmanuel) Bagnas) writes: |> > Here's a stupid question: What sort of certification or validation |> > tests are available for X11R4? I've seen a test suite on expo but |> > it's in an alpha state. |> > |> > I'd also be interested in hearing from individuals who have provided X |> > as a commercial product. Did you do any sort of validation or was |> > it just, "Well, it runs... Let's ship it." |> > |> > adthanksvance |> > |> > manny.bagnas@sandiego.ncr.com |> |> I also would be interested in hearing about X testing experiences. Also, I |> am interested in anyone's experiences with the motif 1.0 test suite. It |> would appear that I am seeing a large number of variances from the |> documentation and wonder what is actually wrong. Finally, I have the same |> last interest, but for Motif, though perhaps the qualification criteria might |> be a little tighter, like, "Well, the whole department doesn't seem to be |> complaining about it... Let's ship it." Motif 1.0??? I'd be willing to discuss experiences with Motif 1.1.1 or newer, but 1.0 is a little old now, isn't it? Alot has changed since the 1.0 timeframe, and therefore most of the issues involved in testing 1.0 have been addressed in some form in later versions (look at VTS that was introduced in 1.1.1). - Marc -- =========================================================================== Marc Evans - WB1GRH - evans@decvax.DEC.COM | Synergytics (603)635-8876 Unix and X Software Consultant | 21 Hinds Ln, Pelham, NH 03076 ===========================================================================