On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
>> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
>> comes off more favorable:
>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> Does the criterion pply strictly to the printing of text and line
> art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
> ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working";
> ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
> Major defined as any of:
> obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
> color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
> white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
> tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
> or more test images
> With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
> bugs as blockers.
I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.
> Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
> initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
> application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
> functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
> installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
> and evince?
How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
whichever basic text editor comes with it.
> Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
> test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
> purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
> and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
> various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
> Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
> gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
> a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
> entire test suites):
> The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
> in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
> familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
> back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
> bug?" etc.
This sounds useful for automating the tests, but I think in general we
don't need to write this into the criteria. They don't need to be that
>> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
>> following drivers:
>> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
>> - The generic IPP driver
>> To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
>> properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
>> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
>> proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
>> that must work.
> I agree with this. One possible sanity test:
> 1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the
> built-in print to PDF driver)
> 2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized
> test file, to the designated IPP printer.
> i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on
> scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria:
> a. PDF file is created from test document
> b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer
> c. PDF file is printed
> d. Test document is printed
> e. minor differences aside: b, c, and d should not cause a WTF
> reaction by a human
That seems reasonable, though I'd rather have Master Wordsmith Adam
Williamson phrase that better.
test mailing list -- test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
I support the idea of having basic printer functionality as a blocker
I haven't been able to use gnome to install printers here since we
bought new printers (Brother HL-L6200DW) I think one issue is that the
driver is not in the database. Maybe a license reason or someone forgot
to ask Brother. However there is a Generic driver in the data base that
works fine. This gets to the second issue that even when selecting the
generic driver using the gnome tool, the gnome tool can not successfully
setup the printer. The printers can be setup successfully with CUPs or
with the Printer Settings application. I have filed bugs on this since F28.
For the test I would suggest that whatever printer is handy be setup
using CUPs. The printer should then print the test page using CUPs. If
we can get that much, I think the basic things are covered. I actually
find CUPs easier to use than Printer Settings and for me the Gnome
printer tool is not useful at all.
Have a Great Day!