[Accessibility] Re: [Accessibility-atspi] Re: a11y API/ABI Testing
gk4 at austin.ibm.com
Fri Nov 16 07:42:47 PST 2007
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:46 -0500, David Bolter wrote:
> I agree Accerciser and Macaroon should be noted if we are to mention
> Dogtail and LDTP, but I'm not sure we want to mention any of them on the
> wiki page in question. It depends on our scope. I've done a little
> research and thought about what you said on the call and I think your
> approach of testing via mock application with custom objects at one end,
> atk/gail/atspi in the middle, and mock AT at the other is reasonable
> (what I mean by testing across 'layers'). Do you still agree with this
> approach or has it hit any snags? Do you see advantages to swapping the
> existing mock AT with other similar tools?
I think it is a mixture of straight API testing (221/222) and API
testing using mock ATs (9/222). The questions are:
1) are the 221 new straight API tests acceptable?
2) are the 9 prototyped mock AT tests acceptable?
> Where are the tests run? Is there a cron job somewhere that checks out
> of gnome svn, builds, runs, and reports?
I don't know of any build/test systems running these tests, nor any
> If migration from the at-spi-registryd daemon approach to a dbus
> implementation happens, we can hopefully catch a lot of problems but
> sticking it between our mock apps and mock ATs which will be very handy
> of course.
> Maybe my question is really: is there anything left to do? Perhaps just
> community building and evangelism?
Evaluate the above mentioned ATK tests and build a consensus of
confidence in them. Fix the ATK bugs found by the LSB's new ATK tests.
Perhaps start working on an AT-SPI test suite that would definitely use
mock AT tests... This would require a spec review for sufficient
More information about the Accessibility