15,188
edits
Template talk:Testing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Username rename (MaJoR => MayImilae)
No edit summary |
(Username rename (MaJoR => MayImilae)) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Android Testing Results == | == 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? [[User: | I recently saw some users posting test results of Dolphin for Android in the forums. Should we start including them in the wiki? [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) | ||
We can, I may need to make some template edits to handle categories, documentation updates, and etc for such. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:28, 1 May 2014 (CEST) | We can, I may need to make some template edits to handle categories, documentation updates, and etc for such. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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? - [[User: | 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? - [[User:MayImilae|MayImilae]] ([[User talk: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: <pre>{{testing/entry|revision=4.0-xxx|OS=Android 4.3|phone=LG G2|result=Black screen, buggy drivers|tester=AndroidUser}}</pre> | 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: <pre>{{testing/entry|revision=4.0-xxx|OS=Android 4.3|phone=LG G2|result=Black screen, buggy drivers|tester=AndroidUser}}</pre> | ||
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 @ 2.26GHz, 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) [[User: | 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 @ 2.26GHz, 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) [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 15:24, 17 November 2015 (CET) | 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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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)... - [[User: | : 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)... - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) | ||
::We now have one, from a video of 4 Swords on Android, but that's from ~2.5 years ago. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 13:41, 2 December 2015 (CET) | ::We now have one, from a video of 4 Swords on Android, but that's from ~2.5 years ago. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 13:41, 2 December 2015 (CET) | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
|NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | |NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | ||
|Great | |Great | ||
| | |mbc07 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|{{revision|4.0-4636}} | |{{revision|4.0-4636}} | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
|MotoDroid | |MotoDroid | ||
|} | |} | ||
:::It would also simplify category generation (we would need to handle only device brand instead of mobile CPU/GPU). So, any thoughts? - [[User: | :::It would also simplify category generation (we would need to handle only device brand instead of mobile CPU/GPU). So, any thoughts? - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 00:16, 5 December 2015 (CET) | ||
:::Err, ping? - [[User: | :::Err, ping? - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 18:54, 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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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 {{tl|Testing/entry}} <s>and I was too lazy to actually check and include all required classes</s> (fixed, should mimic {{tl|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)... - [[User: | |||
:::::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 {{tl|Testing/entry}} <s>and I was too lazy to actually check and include all required classes</s> (fixed, should mimic {{tl|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)... - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk: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). - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 03:31, 7 December 2015 (CET) | |||