- xwiki-devs@xwiki.org - lists.xwiki.org

[xwiki-devs] [Best Practice] Use lowercase for JIRA labels
by Vincent Massol 24 Oct '18

24 Oct '18

Hi, I’d like to propose to use a consistent naming scheme for jira labels and use lowercase (and fix all the upper case we can find). Ok for everyone? Thanks -Vincent

5 7

[xwiki-devs] What do we do with Watchlist and Activity Stream
by Guillaume Delhumeau 24 Oct '18

24 Oct '18

Hi. For 10.9RC1, my objective was to stop bundling the Activity Stream UI in the default flavor. Several months before, I did the same with the Watchlist. Now both of them are replaced by Notifications. Even if they are not bundled anymore by default, I have let the modules in the "platform" repository. The idea was to maintain them until 11.x is started (while we stabilize notifications), and to move them in "attic" at the beginning of next year. Recently, while removing Activity Stream calls in our wiki pages, I discovered some code in the User Profile that was handling both Activity Stream and the Watchlist. I removed it, since it was handling deprecated code. But maybe I should have not, since the modules are not moved into the "attic" repository yet. Anyway, it is not clean to have special code for AS and Watchlist in the User Profile module, we need to create a proper mechanism to inject code into the user profile (see: https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12639) The removing of the code has broken some functional tests in the watchlist module, that were precisely testing this code. So now, we have several options: A - Put back the code I have removed, until Activity Stream UI and Watchlist are moved outside the "platform" repository. So the build would be fixed. B - Remove the failing functional test since it is testing a code we have been removed. So the build would be fixed. C - Put back the code I have removed, but inside the Watchlist module and injected into the User profile via a clean injection system (again: https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12639) The build would be fixed but it requires more time to develop, and we risk to miss 10.9RC1. The release of 10.9RC1 is already late, so what do you think is the best option? Thanks, -- Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project

4 3

[xwiki-devs] [New extension request] Cryptpad Application
by Clément Aubin 20 Oct '18

20 Oct '18

Hi everyone, With Anca and Ludovic, we would like to create a new contrib extension that would allow an XWiki instance to communicate with a Cryptpad server in various ways. This could include: * Import / export of document from / to the Cryptpad server * Editing of Cryptpad documents through XWiki * Backup of Cryptpad documents to XWiki * … I'll handle the creation of the extension repository and of the JIRA project. Thanks, Clément

1 1

[xwiki-devs] [XWiki Day] BFD#193
by Oana-Lavinia Florean 19 Oct '18

19 Oct '18

Hello devs, This Thursday is BFD#193: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/XWikiDays#HBugfixingday Our current status is: * -76 bugs over 120 days (4 months), i.e. we need to close 76 bugs to have created bugs == closed bugs * -127 bugs over 365 days (1 year) * -173 bugs over 500 days (between 1 and 2 years) * -381 bugs over 1600 days (4.3 years) See https://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10352 Here's the BFD#193 dashboard to follow the progress during the day: *https://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=14331 <https://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=14331>* Good luck at fixing bugs, Lavinia

1 1

[xwiki-devs] [STAMP/Test] Metrics we need to improve + strategy
by Vincent Massol 17 Oct '18

17 Oct '18

Hi devs (and anyone else interested to improve the tests of XWiki), History ====== It all started when I analyzed our global TPC and found that it was going down globally even though we have the fail-build-on-jacoco-threshold strategy. I sent several email threads: - Loss of TPC: http://markmail.org/message/hqumkdiz7jm76ya6 - TPC evolution: http://markmail.org/message/up2gc2zzbbe4uqgn - Improve our TPC strategy: http://markmail.org/message/grphwta63pp5p4l7 Note: As a consequence of this last thread, I implemented a Jenkins Pipeline to send us a mail when the global TPC of an XWiki module goes down so that we fix it ASAP. This is still a development in progress. A first version is done and running at https://ci.xwiki.org/view/Tools/job/Clover/ but I need to debug it and fix it (it’s not working ATM). As a result of the global TPC going down/stagnating, I have proposed to have 10.7 focused on Tests + BFD. - Initially I proposed to focus on increasing the global TPC by looking at the reports from 1) above (http://markmail.org/message/qjemnip7hjva2rjd) See the last report at https://up1.xwikisas.com/#mJ0loeB6nBrAgYeKA7MGGw (we need to fix the red parts). - Then with the STAMP mid-term review, a bigger urgency surfaced and I asked if we could instead focus on fixing tests as reported by Descartes to increase both coverage and mutation score (ie test quality), since those are 2 metrics/KPIs measured by STAMP and since XWiki participates to STAMP we need to work on them and increase them substantially. See http://markmail.org/message/ejmdkf3hx7drkj52 The results of XWiki 10.7 has been quite poor on test improvements (more focus on BFD than tests, lots of devs on holidays, etc). This forces us to have a different strategy. Full Strategy proposal ================= 1) As many XWiki SAS devs as possible (and anyone else from the community who’s interested ofc! :)) should spend 1 day per week working on improving STAMP metrics * Currently the agreement is that Thomas and myself will do this for the foreseeable future till we get some good-enough metric progress * Some other devs from XWiki SAS will help out for XWiki 10.8 only FTM (Marius, Adel if he can, Simon in the future). The idea is to see where that could get us by using substantial manpower. 2) All committers: More generally the global TPC failure is also already active and dev need to modify modules that see their global TPC go down. 3) All committers: Of course, the jacoco strategy is also active at each module level. STAMP tools ========== There are 4 tools developed by STAMP: * Descartes: Improves quality of tests by increasing their mutation scores. See http://markmail.org/message/bonb5f7f37omnnog and also https://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes * DSpot: Automatically generate new tests, based on existing tests. See https://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/TestGenerationDspot * CAMP: Takes a Dockerfile and generates mutations of it, then deploys and execute tests on the software to see if the mutation works or not. Note this is currently not fitting the need of XWiki and thus I’ve been developing another tool as an experiment (which may go back in CAMP one day), based on TestContainers, see https://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/EnvironmentTestingExperiment… * EvoCrash: Takes a stack trace from production logs and generates a test that, when executed, reproduces the crash. See https://markmail.org/message/v74g3tsmflquqwra. See also https://github.com/SERG-Delft/EvoCrash Since XWiki is part of the STAMP research project, we need to use those 4 tools to increase the KPIs associated with the tools. See below. Objectives/KPIs/Metrics for STAMP =========================== The STAMP project has defined 9 KPIs that all partners (and thus XWiki) need to work on: 1) K01: Increase test coverage * Global increase by reducing by 40% the non-covered code. For XWiki since we’re at about 70%, this means reaching about 80% before the end of STAMP (ie. before end of 2019) * Increase the coverage contributions of each tool developed by STAMP. Strategy: * Primary goal: ** Increase coverage by executing Descartes and improving our tests. This is http://markmail.org/message/ejmdkf3hx7drkj52 ** Don’t do anything with DSpot. I’ll do that part. Note that the goal is to write a Jenkins pipeline to automatically execute DSpot from time to time and commit the generated tests in a separate test source and have our build execute both src/test/java and this new test source. ** Don’t do anything with TestContainers FTM since I need to finish a first working version. I may need help in the future to implement docker images for more configurations (on Oracle, in a cluster, with LibreOffice, with an external SOLR server, etc). ** For EvoCrash: We’ll count contributions of EvoCrash to coverage in K08. * Secondary goal: ** Increase our global TPC as mentioned above by fixing the modules in red. 2) K02: Reduce flaky tests. * Objective: reduce the number of flaky tests by 20% Strategy: * Record flaky tests in jira * Fix the max number of them 3) K03: Better test quality * Objective: increase mutation score by 20% Strategy: * Same strategy as K01. 4) K04: More configuration-related paths tested * Objective: increase the code coverage of configuration-related paths in our code by 20% (e.g. DB schema creation, cluster)related code, SOLR-related code, LibreOffice-related code, etc). Strategy: * Leave it to FTM. The idea is to measure Clover TPC with the base configuration, then execute all other configurations (with TestContainers) and regenerate the Clover report to see how much the TPC has increased. 5) K05: Reduce system-specific bugs * Objective: 30% improvement Strategy: * Run TestContainers, execute existing tests and find new bugs related to configurations. Record them 6) K06: More configurations/Faster tests * Objective: increase the number of automatically tested configurations by 50% Strategy: * Increase the # of configurations we test with TestContainers. I’ll do that part initially. * Reduce time it takes to deploy the software under a given configuration vs time it used to take when done manually before STAMP. I’ll do this one. I’ve already worked on it in the past year with the dockerization of XWiki. 7) K07: Pending, nothing to do FTM 8) K08: More crash replicating test cases * Objective: increase the number of crash replicating test cases by at least 70% Strategy: * For all issues that are still open and that have stack traces and for all issues closed but without tests, run EvoCrash on them to try to generate a test. * Record and count the number of successful EvoCrash-generated test cases. * Derive a regression test (which can be very different from the negative of the test generated by evocrash!). * Measure the new coverage increase * Note that I haven’t experimented much with this yet myself. 9) K09: Pending, nothing to do FTM. Conclusion ========= Right now, I need your help for the following KPIs: K01, K02, K03, K08. Since there’s a lot to understand in this email, I’m open to: * Organizing a meeting on youtube live to discuss all this * Answering any questions on this thread ofc * Also feel free to ask on IRC/Matrix. Here’s an extract from STAMP which has more details about the KPIs/metrics: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#QJyxqspKXSzuWNOHUuAaEA Thanks -Vincent

4 15

[xwiki-devs] [UX][Proposal] Distribution Wizard: Never Button
by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) 17 Oct '18

17 Oct '18

Hi devs, This is an improvements proposal for the "Never" button from Distribution Wizard. https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/Upgrade/DWNeverButton/ I've listed several variants of fixing the usability issue, let me know which one is your favorite. My +1 goes to VAR2: Confirmation; with minimum we can do being VAR1: Location. Thanks, Caty

3 7

[xwiki-devs] [ANN] XWiki 9.11.8 released
by Eduard Moraru 17 Oct '18

17 Oct '18

The XWiki development team is proud to announce the availability of XWiki 9.11.8. This is a bugfix release that covers important issues that we have discovered since 9.11.7 has been released. You can download it here: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Download Make sure to review the release notes: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/ReleaseNotes/Data/XWiki/9.11.8 Thanks for your support -The XWiki dev team

1 0

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Change ObservationManager behaviour with CancelableEvents
by Simon Urli 17 Oct '18

17 Oct '18

Hi everyone, the current behaviour of the ObservationManager is to always triggers the listeners if it matches the events. Now regarding the CancelableEvents, the match is only done on the type of the event and some given filter rules, but never with its cancel status: if an event is cancelled, the matching listeners are always triggered. I propose to change that behaviour, to trigger listeners only if the CancelableEvents are not canceled: basically, a cancelled event wouldn't match any listener. My primary reason for wanting that change is that the current behaviour led to a bad UX: if an event triggers multiple questions, no matter if one is cancelled, all questions will be asked to the user. Do you know if the current behaviour is required at some places? Else do you agree on changing it? Simon -- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli(a)xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

4 8

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Prevent users from renaming/move pages with XClass definition
by Simon Urli 17 Oct '18

17 Oct '18

Hi all, users might currently break their AWM application by renaming/moving pages containing XClass definition. We need a proper refactoring operation to be able to properly do such move/rename. But this feature might take a while to be completely available. In the meantime I propose that we prevent users from renaming/moving pages containing XClass. What I propose is the following: - Forbid completely *simple users* to rename/move pages containing XClass - Display a warning to *advanced users* when they perform such operation: the same kind of warning we already have when performing edit on XWiki pages WDYT? Simon -- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli(a)xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

6 28

[xwiki-devs] Fwd: [xwiki/xwiki-commons] One of your dependencies may have a security vulnerability
by Vincent Massol 16 Oct '18

16 Oct '18

nice… Even though we rolled back this upgrade since it has regressions ;) -Vincent > Begin forwarded message: > > From: GitHub <notifications(a)github.com> > Subject: [xwiki/xwiki-commons] One of your dependencies may have a security vulnerability > Date: 16 October 2018 at 19:02:58 CEST > To: xwiki/xwiki-commons <xwiki-commons(a)noreply.github.com> > Cc: Security alert <security_alert(a)noreply.github.com> > Reply-To: xwiki/xwiki-commons <noreply(a)github.com> > > <https://github.com/> Sign in <https://github.com/login> > vmassol, > We found a potential security vulnerability in a repository for which you have been granted security alert access. > > xwiki/xwiki-commons <https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-commons> > Known moderate severity security vulnerability detected in org.dom4j:dom4j < 2.1.1 defined in pom.xml <https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-commons/blob/master/pom.xml>. > pom.xml <https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-commons/blob/master/pom.xml> update suggested: org.dom4j:dom4j ~> 2.1.1. > Always verify the validity and compatibility of suggestions with your codebase. > Review vulnerable dependency <https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-commons/network/alert/pom.xml/org.dom4j:dom4…> > > Only users who have been assigned access to security alerts will receive these notifications. > > Unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-vulnerability/AAmWKxhmdIzJDKAX…>· Email preferences <https://github.com/settings/emails> · Terms <https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/> · Privacy <https://help.github.com/articles/github-privacy-policy/> · Sign into GitHub <https://github.com/login> > > GitHub, Inc. > 88 Colin P Kelly Jr St. > San Francisco, CA 94107 >

1 1