We have moved to a new Sailfish OS Forum. Please start new discussions there.

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version

posted 2014-01-10 10:28:35 +0200

rcg gravatar image

Harbour: Tool/automatism for quickly checking "simple" compliance requirements

It would be great if there was a tool or some sort of automatism that allows developers to quickly check if an app complies with the submission requirements for Harbour. Background is that the Q/A process takes quite some time (I know you guys are very busy and I don't want to moan here.) and due to this the develop/check/report/fix cycle is pretty long. It seems like that there are a number of checks, like naming conventions, allowed linked libraries, or XDG path conformity that could be automated or are even done already with some test script/tool.

So, my question is if it is planned to provide some automated way, like a tool that can be downloaded or an automated test that is run directly after an *.rpm was uploaded to Harbour, that enables quicker checking of those requirements. Having such a tool would allow developers to check, at least some, compliance requirements faster and thus upload better apps to Harbour. This way, your testers could also focus more on the really important parts than just complaining about simple things (Which, I think, is as frustrating for your testers as it is for us developers. ;) )

A similar question has also been brought up on the mailing list and this request now was also partially motivated by that e-mail: https://lists.sailfishos.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/002702.html

Harbour: Tool/automatism for quickly checking "simple" compliance requirements

It would be great if there was a tool or some sort of automatism that allows developers to quickly check if an app complies with the submission requirements for Harbour. Background is that the Q/A process takes quite some time (I know you guys are very busy and I don't want to moan here.) and due to this the develop/check/report/fix cycle is pretty long. It seems like that there are a number of checks, like naming conventions, allowed linked libraries, or XDG path conformity that could be automated or are even done already with some test script/tool.

So, my question is if it is planned to provide some automated way, like a tool that can be downloaded or an automated test that is run directly after an *.rpm was uploaded to Harbour, that enables quicker checking of those requirements. Having such a tool would allow developers to check, at least some, compliance requirements faster and thus upload better apps to Harbour. This way, your testers could also focus more on the really important parts than just complaining about simple things (Which, I think, is as frustrating for your testers as it is for us developers. ;) )

A similar question has also been brought up on the mailing list and this request now was also partially motivated by that e-mail: https://lists.sailfishos.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/002702.html

Harbour: Tool/automatism for quickly checking "simple" compliance requirements

It would be great if there was a tool or some sort of automatism that allows developers to quickly check if an app complies with the submission requirements for Harbour. Background is that the Q/A process takes quite some time (I know you guys are very busy and I don't want to moan here.) and due to this the develop/check/report/fix cycle is pretty long. It seems like that there are a number of checks, like naming conventions, allowed linked libraries, or XDG path conformity that could be automated or are even done already with some test script/tool.

So, my question is if it is planned to provide some automated way, like a tool that can be downloaded or an automated test that is run directly after an *.rpm was uploaded to Harbour, that enables quicker checking of those requirements. Having such a tool would allow developers to check, at least some, compliance requirements faster and thus upload better apps to Harbour. This way, your testers could also focus more on the really important parts than just complaining about simple things (Which, I think, is as frustrating for your testers as it is for us developers. ;) )

A similar question has also been brought up on the mailing list and this request now was also partially motivated by that e-mail: https://lists.sailfishos.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/002702.html