Improving http://tests.winehq.org/data/

[James Hawkins]

On 10/25/07, Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> wrote:
>
> Here are some things I noticed while using this site. Let me know if I
> it would help to make bug reports for these:
>
>  * Some result entries are red with a dash in them and a blue border.
> See the Windows 98 results for http://test.winehq.org/data/200710241000/
>    I assume these means that the test did not load. However we should
> distinguish two cases there:
>
>  - if it did not run because the tested dll did not exist at all, then
> it's not a test failure and thus the background should be green.
>    A typical case would be the crypt32 tests on Windows 98.
>
>  - if the dll was there but the test still did not run, typically
> because the dll is missing an export, then that's a bug in the test: it
> should dynamically load that function so the other checks it performs
> can be run.
>    A typical case is the gdi32 tests on Windows 98.
>    Ideally we'd even have a log showing the missing API but that's
> probably too tricky to do on Windows.
>
>  * Downloading the log file for a given test run gives me a file that's
> called 'report'. It would be nice if it was called something like
> 'vmware-win98-report' instead so that saving a couple of them in a
> directory leads to fewer collisions.
>
>  * It would be nice if the /data page looked more like a calendar with
> the most current date easily accessible, and a less like the directory
> listing it currently is. Then a / page would be nice too.
>
>    I'm pretty unlikely to fix these, but at least here is a starting if
> someone is inclined to do so: you will find the source for the
> test.winehq.org website in the tools.git repository:
>    http://source.winehq.org/git/tools.git/?a=tree;f=winetest
>
>    To get hold of the sources, see the instructions there:
>    http://www.winehq.org/site/git#modules
>

Another problem is when you click on a failed test result box for an
OS with several test runs.  When you click on the specific test link,
you are sent to the page containing the differences for all the tests.
 At the very least, it would be nice to be sent directly to the test
in question.  For example, kernel32:actctx fails 3 tests in XP.  I
click on the box containing the XP results, and I'm sent to the page
containing all the differences for the tests run on XP.  I now have to
search again for the test I was concerned about, kernel32:actctx.

-- 
James Hawkins