[rkward-devel] rkwardtests & docs

[Thomas Friedrichsmeier]

Hi,

On Saturday 30 October 2010, meik michalke wrote:
> did anyone yet have a look at the changes i did to the rkwardtests package
> and docs on plugin writing recently? i did most of that during longer
> train rides.

I have not read too closely (I'm currently mostly working on turning the 
implementation of the R backend upside down in a separate branch in SVN), but 
I did have a look at the SVN commit diffs, and that looks good to me.

There is a warning while installing the rkwardtests package:
** help
Warning: ./man/rktest.replaceRunAgainLink.Rd:20: unexpected '}'
Could you take a look at that?

> - rkwardtests:
> i made it use an enviroment called .rktest.tmp.storage in globalenv now,
> which should be created automatically if needed, as well as removed if
> empty. should this be moved some place else?

I don't think it matters too much, where this is placed. But since you're 
asking: It is probably a good idea to (try to) keep the globalenv() as clean 
as possible. So you could move that environment to the rkwardtests-
package/namespace itself. That could also simplify the code a tiny bit, as you 
could create the environment unconditionally, once, and leave it in place, 
even when it is empty.

> does it work without flaws
> for you?

I did not test the latest version, yet, but interim versions worked fine for 
me. A few tests fail due to using internals of the old implementation, such as 
misusing rktest-functions as "data" (the "package_skeleton"-test for example). 
Perhaps you could take a look at those, too?

> i also took care of one TODO i found in the code comments -- if a
> test was skipped due to missing packages, the results should list only the
> *missing* libs now.

Great!

> - docs:
> there's a whole new chapter on external plugins now. i hope i got it all
> right. primarily i wonder whether the section on meta information (<about>)
> should either become a part of the ordinary plugin writing sections, or be
> linked to from there. none of the new tags are listed in the reference yet,
> though.

I am not sure what is the best way to structure this. But in fact, the section 
on meta-information applies to ordinary plugins as well. Perhaps put it into 
an independent section, and reference that from both the "external plugins" 
and "ordinary plugins" sections.

I guess we should find one unique name for those downloadable archives of (one 
or more) external plugins, and use that, consistently, across the 
documentation, but also in the GUI. I suggest "plugin pack". Other 
suggestions?

Regards
Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rkward-devel/attachments/20101031/d3793e9c/attachment.sig>