[OOTB-addons] Documenting / organising acceptance criteria

Angel Borroy angel.borroy at keensoft.es
Sun Nov 16 20:08:34 GMT 2014

Uploader Plus - Informal Review

URL: http://softwareloop.com/uploader-plus-an-alfresco-uploader-that-prompts-for-metadata/
Github: https://github.com/softwareloop/uploader-plus

1, 2, 3 - License GNU LGPL 3
4 - Only Alfresco libraries
5 - Non informed
6 - Maven
7 - Not currently on addons (but inboxes from the same author is in)
8 - http://softwareloop.com/uploader-plus-installation/ (outside addons)
9 - https://github.com/softwareloop/uploader-plus
10 - http://softwareloop.com/uploader-plus-installation/, http://softwareloop.com/uploader-plus-configuration/, http://softwareloop.com/uploader-plus-working-with-custom-content-types/
11 - Only Alfresco libraries are required (not listed)

1 - AMP
2 - AMP
3 - AMP
4 - /
5 - /
6 - AMP
7 - NO (We can provide AMP ready to deploy, it should be our add value on this)
8 - share + repo
9 - ok
10 - AMP
11 - AMP + Maven SDK
12 - Maven
13 - ok
14 - ok
15 - ok
16 - ok
17 - ok
18 - ok
19 - ok (REPEAT 18)
20 - ok
21 - ok
22 - ok
23 - ok
24 - ok
25 - ok
26 - ok
27 - ok
28 - ok
29 - ok
30 - ok

It overrides dnd-upload.get.html.ftl, flash-upload.get.html.ftl, html-upload.get.html.ftl but we have no check on this.

1 - 4.2.f
2 - ok
3 - ok
4 - Chrome / Firefox / Safari (tested by me, it could be another add value from OOTB)
5 - ok
6 - ok

This addon should be in if there were AMP ready to deploy and if FTL override should be accepted
Tech 18 and Tech 19 are repeated in our check list
OOTB add value possibilities
Provide ready to deploy AMPs
Test addons on common browsers
We need to include FTL extension criteria on our Tech section?
My review has been done examining the code by my own, but it should be nice to have some tools in order to inspect Alfresco bean utilization, use of Alfresco API and any other check that should be checked programmatically
On the other hand, I’ve written to Paolo to thank him this beauty code and to suggest him one possible addition. Should we do this beside OOTB brand?

Finally, on the subjective point of view. I think it’s a great code to adapt to many projects but I feel it’s not a ready to use artifact. However, there are few modifications to be done to get this ready to use level.


Angel Borroy

email:   angel.borroy at keensoft.es
web:     http://www.keensoft.es
móvil:  +34 655 47 47 55


La presente comunicación y, en su caso, los ficheros que lleve adjuntos, pertenecen exclusivamente a las personas a las que va dirigido y puede contener información confidencial. Si usted no es el destinatario de este mensaje (o la persona responsable de su entrega), considérese advertido de que lo ha recibido por error y que cualquier uso, difusión, reenvío o copia están prohibidos legalmente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, por favor notifíquelo al remitente y proceda a destruirlo inmediatamente.

This message and the attached documents may contain privileged/confidential information and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person) be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify it to the sender and destroy it immediately.

En 13 de noviembre de 2014 en 20:18:04, Martin Cosgrave (martin at ocretail.com) escrito:

I like the wiki entries. The inclusion checklist is kind of scary but the descriptive text looks good to me.

I will probably pick a few from the candidates list and implement them in the distro build and see how I get on.


On 13/11/2014 13:07, Axel Faust wrote:
Hello Angel, @all,


did you get a chance to review/consider the structure / contents? There have been no wiki edits / issues or new mailing list replies so far.




Von: OOTB-addons [mailto:ootb-addons-bounces at xtreamlab.net] Im Auftrag von Axel Faust
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 11:05
An: Ángel Borroy
Cc: ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net
Betreff: Re: [OOTB-addons] Documenting / organising acceptance criteria


Hi Angel,


hmm – the wiki does not appear to have a decent comment / discussion support. Also, there are issues to consider regarding “frozen state/version” of acceptance criteria and working on content for a new iteration.

The wiki being a Git repo could theoretically help in some cases, but unfortunately the tooling is not that great – no ability to browse branches/tags in the wiki repo, no pull-requests …


For the moment, I would say:

-          Comments about the “how” / “why” of documenting / organizing our criteria belong in this discussion, e.g. anything about general structure, depth / detail and intent

-          Comments / discussion about specific contents in the wiki should have a separate “forum”

o   Option a) Spin off a new discussion on the mailing list

o   Option b) Create an issue with proposed change(s) and apply changes if in agreement (or no opposition after certain time)

o   Option c) Apply changes directly and

§  c1) use either option a) or b) to sort out conflicts with other people’s edits, or

§  c2) create “Talk”-pages (like in Wikipedia)


Use your own discretion about which option to choose based on the type of comment / issue you have with a piece of content.





Von: Ángel Borroy [mailto:angel.borroy at keensoft.es]
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 05:48
An: Axel Faust
Cc: ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net
Betreff: Re: [OOTB-addons] Documenting / organising acceptance criteria


Amazing job! I've been rewieving the content for a while, but I'll need further study in order to get all this map clear. However, I just have some comments on it. Should we use this mail list to discuss about it? Or is there any review mechanism on the wiki?


Best regards,


El domingo, 26 de octubre de 2014, Axel Faust <axel.faust at prodyna.com> escribió:

Hello all,


in the two weeks since Summit I have “played around” in our wiki (https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki) trying out ways to document and organize any acceptance criteria we have for addons that we want to include in the collection. Currently, I have created a page for a “quick overview” of all criteria (https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Inclusion-criteria-overview) and a couple of “sub-pages” that feature more detail in the description of requirements – and could potentially include examples of accepted vs. unaccepted constellations / behaviour in the future. These sub-pages are https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Non-technical-inclusion-criteria and https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Technical-inclusion-criteria for the moment, but may be further sub-divided when more content is included.


The overview should be easier to use as a checklist when we review any addons since you don’t have to interpret and mince with too much textual description. But I think we won’t get by without having a more detailed, descriptive version of the criteria catalog either as simple clarification or an argumentative basis when we discuss reviews with addon developers. If – in the long run – we engage with the Community in educating developers about aspects we consider “best practice”, this should allow us to easily expand a detailed description of a single rule / criterion into a dedicated HowTo / blog post.


The current content of these pages in regards to acceptance criteria reflects what I could think of to get started. Wherever possible I tried to keep the various comments from previous discussions in mind, but in the end, those contents are primarily intended as a plastic example.


Please take the time to review and share your thoughts.

As several people discussed at Summit, we need to keep the momentum of the Order in general going. I would like it if this meant we’ll have a first accepted draft of a criteria catalog sometime next month and start doing the first “prototype reviews” before Christmas holidays (and preparations) have everyone distracted for the rest of the year. Defining the “how” of criteria documentation is the first step…




Angel Borroy
655 47 47 55

OOTB-addons mailing list
OOTB-addons at xtreamlab.net

OOTB-addons mailing list  
OOTB-addons at xtreamlab.net  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-addons/attachments/20141116/b5301810/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OOTB-addons mailing list