[ros-users] [Discourse.ros.org] [Quality Assurance] Revising the gtest tutorial

[Tully Foote]

[quote="wasowski, post:1, topic:4588"]
I decided to bite into our gtest tutorial at wiki.ros.org/gtest. This looks like a larger job, as the tutorial is much less developed than the other top-level testing tutorial, which I already revised.  I expect this will take several weeks - I will have to find time to try out things, and fix things that are outdated. Times is scarce, thus the slow speed.
[/quote]

That's great. While you're looking at it though, try to make the tutorial about the ROS specific aspects and link out to other upstream gtest tutorials for the core gtest concepts instead of reproducing them.

[quote="wasowski, post:1, topic:4588"]
What is wiki.ros.org/gtest/Troubleshooting and wiki.ros.org/gtest/Reviews? Both seem to be (almost) empty pages that wiki knows about and asks whether they need to be moved as well.  They look as some auto generated stuff, and I am wondering whether, if I move them, they will be recreated again. Or are they some legacy stuff that should simply be deleted? Delete? Move along?
[/quote]

The Troubleshooting and Review pages are not completely auto generated, but are auto linked to the header if they are present. They have templates for them if you create the page. The TroubleshootingTemplate just helps start a list with reasonable formatting. The Reviews page is left over from the older [QAProcess](http://wiki.ros.org/QAProcess) used at Willow Garage. It hasn't been used really since then. Much of that process was used on the old wiki and the Review pages were found to be slowing down the wiki and often would overshadow formal documentation in search results. Much of that content predates the use of github and other platforms with pull requests and review processes available. It's likely that all of the QAProcess should be cleaned up. As an example the gtest Review page was made to propose creating a ROS package for gtest, but clearly we've chosen to use the upstream version now so that proposal from 2009 is not particularly useful now and could be cleared ou
 t.

Since the Troubleshooting page had zero content I just deleted it.

[quote="wasowski, post:1, topic:4588"]
The rosbuild part of the tutorial concerns me as well. I am too young a ROS user to be able to update.  And I dont care so much right now for learning rosbuild. What should we do about it? Can someone help by adjusting this in about a month? Or should we drop maintaining it?
[/quote]

We should not delete the rosbuild content, but I wouldn't suggest spending much time to update it to new practices as we are not planning to spend time updating the rosbuild toolchain.





---
[Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/revising-the-gtest-tutorial/4588/2) or reply to this email to respond.