[Accessibility] Re: [Accessibility-atspi] Re: a11y API/ABI Testing

[George Kraft]

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
posted results.

> 
> 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.

Agreed.

> 
> 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.

http://linuxtesting.org/results/impl_reports?action=component_bug&name=gtk-atk

Perhaps start working on an AT-SPI test suite that would definitely use
mock AT tests...  This would require a spec review for sufficient
details.

-- 
George (gk4)