My 2 cents on this topic: user interface consistency cannot be underestimated. I called these 'leds' unit-test icons because thats what they are (in my mind and I guess also for a lot of other people). So using them for anything else is not a good idea at all. Alex' proposal seems (to me) a much better idea. On 23 Apr 2011, at 13:05, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I agree with you. The browser is not yet a replacement for manual editing. The validation mechanism has to be present.
Maybe the led can be traded with a red bold font for the project name. The meaning of the red font is clear and unambiguous. The led can then instead be used for the test. How does that sound?
I will work on the test soon. This week end maybe.
Alexandre
Le 23 avr. 2011 à 11:43, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> a écrit :
Alexandre,
I think the 'run tests' command is great idea ...
Validation wil be important as long as folks edit configs by hand, so validation needs to be part of the tool set (whether automatic or manual) ...
Just because people don't do it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be doing it ... it is very easy to introduce an error that won't show up until you try to use the configuration, so validation is important...
I would prefer to see it automatic which then begs the question of how to notify the user that there is a validation issue and which configuration/version has the issue ... presumably we have a set of feedback options that we can use ...
Dale
-- Johan Fabry jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile