Template talk:Testing

Handling of "User" Entry
The "User" entry needs a correction. The "Special:Contributions" page won't exist for users that aren't registered, and it's only displayed for such. I would lean to using the "Special:Contributions" page for users that exist and a generic search on the user name otherwise.Kolano 09:02, 17 February 2012 (CET)

Actually, on closer look, the "Special:Contributions" does work for registered users that don't have user pages. Not clear if there is a way to identify unregistered users and provide a generic search for them instead.Kolano 09:04, 17 February 2012 (CET)

Android Testing Results
I recently saw some users posting test results of Dolphin for Android in the forums. Should we start including them in the wiki? mbc07 (talk)

We can, I may need to make some template edits to handle categories, documentation updates, and etc for such. Kolano (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2014 (CEST)

The main problem I see is that... will users even know what's in their phones? Sure they will possibly know what their phone is, so I guess that gives us something to work from, but are you ok with getting CPU and GPU information from a phone name? And how to phone names fit in the template? - MayImilae (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (CEST)

Well, if the user want to upload an Android test then we should require they at least know what CPU and GPU their phone have. Another possible (but a little ugly) solution would be matching CPU and GPU from a table (maybe in a sub template) with phone names to do the thing, so, in the test entry the user would just put something like this: and in the page it would be replaced by the common template (Revision=4.0-xxx, OS=Android 4.3, CPU=Krait 400 Quad Core @ 2.26 GHz, GPU=Adreno 330). The main issue with this approach would be the big nightmares we would get, like maintaining the list updated with all of Android phones available, not to mention having a lot of entries for the same phone in the sub template table (Samsung Galaxies for example, flagship models get at least a Qualcomm variant and an Exynos variant in most cases) mbc07 (talk)

(quoting from Linux Purge discussion)

It looks like you did capture some of the mobile CPU/GPU stuff. This also seems fine, though I also have a bad feeling many folks will have no idea what CPU/GPU are in their phones and we'll be cleaning stuff up a lot. I guess that would be dependent on actually getting some Android test results though. Kolano (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2015 (CET)
 * I won't work on this for a while, just realized some other issues we'll certainly have in current design (e.g. two different devices may use exactly the same CPU/GPU and Android version and yet may perform completely different because of OEM shipping older/newer GPU drivers or one including optimizations not available in the other). Including device model would fix that but it would also probably require some redesigns. In other words, at least currently it's not worth the work needed, we still don't have any Android testing entry (on the wiki)... - mbc07 (talk)


 * We now have one, from a video of 4 Swords on Android, but that's from ~2.5 years ago. Kolano (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2015 (CET)
 * I think I found a way to account for Android test entries, what about adding a new  parameter to Testing/entry that get the device model (in the common format   and if necessary -- but only if that specific variant ships with a different SoC)? When specifying a device this entry would span across CPU and GPU columns (to prevent breaking current table), solving the issue of different phones with the same SoC performing different while maintaining simple for the user (which will need to know only his phone model). Also, a tech-savvy reader could quickly search for the phone model if he wants to know that CPU/GPU that specific device has. I didn't code a sandbox but that's what I mean:
 * {|class="testresults wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="font-size:90%"

! colspan="6" | Test Entries ! Revision !! OS Version !! CPU !! GPU !! Result !! Tester
 * Windows 10
 * Intel Core i7-3630QM @ 2.4 GHz
 * NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M
 * Great
 * mbc07
 * Android 4.4.2
 * colspan="2" | Samsung Galaxy S4 (I9506)
 * Good
 * SammyDroid
 * Windows 8.1
 * Intel Core i5-5200U @ 2.2 GHz
 * NVIDIA GeForce GT 920M
 * Great
 * BroadwellPC
 * Android 5.0.2
 * colspan="2" | Sony Xperia Z3 Plus
 * Good
 * Xperia007
 * Android 5.1
 * colspan="2" | Motorola Moto X Play
 * Good
 * MotoDroid
 * }
 * It would also simplify category generation (we would need to handle only device brand instead of mobile CPU/GPU). So, any thoughts? - mbc07 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2015 (CET)
 * Err, ping? - mbc07 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2015 (CET)
 * Xperia007
 * Android 5.1
 * colspan="2" | Motorola Moto X Play
 * Good
 * MotoDroid
 * }
 * It would also simplify category generation (we would need to handle only device brand instead of mobile CPU/GPU). So, any thoughts? - mbc07 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2015 (CET)
 * Err, ping? - mbc07 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2015 (CET)
 * It would also simplify category generation (we would need to handle only device brand instead of mobile CPU/GPU). So, any thoughts? - mbc07 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2015 (CET)
 * Err, ping? - mbc07 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2015 (CET)


 * I'm not sure this will work out. Try using the "Collapse" button, it seems to cause the full table to disappear now. Didn't investigate further to try to see why. Perhaps you just missed pulling in one of the relevant classes here, but I'm not sure. Kolano (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2015 (CET)


 * When implemented it'll work fine without breaking any functionality we currently have, this table from the example I put above isn't actually calling Testing/entry and I was too lazy to actually check and include all required classes (fixed, should mimic Testing correctly now). I want to hear about possible points you may have in favour/against of this approach before moving further (and if possible, address possible complaints)... - mbc07 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2015 (CET)


 * I was just worried we'd break the collapse when using colspans somehow. Still seems to be funny if the sort buttons are used, so we may need to watch out for breakage if implemented. Only other concern I have is that we then label the Device column as CPU\GPU, but that's probably not the end of the world. Kolano (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2015 (CET)


 * Nice catch, I'll try to do something regarding the sort buttons. And about CPU/GPU, well, in that approach we in fact do not name the column as "device" but I think it's intuitive enough to the reader (e.g. a device of course will have a CPU/GPU so in the end it makes sense using colspan here). - mbc07 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2015 (CET)

##GHz to ## GHz mass edit
Lately, while reviewing existing testing entries, the way we currently format the CPU speed is bothering me. AFAICT we're one of the few places that "glues" the measurement unit to the number (2 GHz, 3.4 GHz, etc.), while everywhere else has them separated (datasheets from Intel and AMD, tech sites and so on), and I'm strongly inclined on using the MassEditRegex extension to "unglue" them here too (2 GHz, 3.4 GHz, etc.). Any thoughts, considerations or remarks about that change?
 * Alternatively we might want to add more quality checks into the template. Then gauge from there whether we need to resort to regex for mass editing or not. Lucario (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2022 (CET)
 * Though I may have missed a few I had been revising them to be without spaces to maintain consistency. If we want to revise them all that's fine, but we hadn't wanted to attempt to previously as it was before having the mass edit add-on. Kolano (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2022 (CET)


 * So, you both are OK in doing the mass edit? Asking one last time before proceeding because reverting the mass edits can potentially be a PITA if we ever need to for whatever reason. mbc07 (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2022 (CET)
 * I don't have a preference. If the regex was written from a paranoid user I don't see why it will fail. Lucario (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2022 (CET)


 * Yeah, go ahead. I think the older mass edit tool used to provide better review / revert functionality. 🤷 Kolano (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2022 (CET)