I will come back on this topic.

Anil Patel

Hi Hotwax Media team,

Though the status of Apache-Extras is still uncertain, would it be possible to put the https://svn.hotwaxmedia.com/svn/ofbizext/selenium/ component there? If ever Apache-Extras is deprecated we will anyway try to get a similar place. Thanks!

Good link for designing test using selenium
http://seleniumhq.org/docs/06_test_design_considerations.html

Due to some license issues with external libraries used in Selenium we cannot include this in the Apache trunk; However, a new component has been created which is free to download and use, but lives in an ofbizext repository.

https://svn.hotwaxmedia.com/svn/ofbizext/selenium

Drop this in hot-depoy.

Tis all good now.

Brett, I fixed this problem - this was something that my lame patch update caused. Sorry for not seeing this earlier

Added login credentials for those of us who don't remember the password. Also has the updated offset information for the other files.

Updated patch that should fix rejected main.ftl and offset issues.

I seems that there is not much hope from Selenium team side. I propose to use the OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES approach.

I posted on their forum : http://forums.openqa.org/thread.jspa?threadID=6461
The link is not accessible anymore, look for ofbiz in the search tool
Today I found this http://clearspace.openqa.org/message/18291#18291

Chris, Jacques,

Yes, I like the OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES approach, this might just rescue the work so far

Is there any reason why we can't automate the install of the selenium libs? So if a user tries to run selenium without the libs we have some code to check whether they are present and if not prompt the user to install automatically? What would be required here? would we have to show license headers before they proceeded?

I think this is important as I'd like to look into Chandra's suggestion of recording the solution to some of the common questions that people ask as a kind of visual how to. Given the target audience for such a feature, the easier the install is the better. I also don't want to give the impression that around every corner in OfBiz there will be a requirement to install additional libs as that could be a real turn-off!

Andrew

Jacopo,

Yes, why not. I will try...

What about asking for clarifications about these license issues in the Selenium user list?
They could probably interested and could help to solve them.

Chris,

No but one : Andrew's Selenium patch is his own (english?). I mean he created it, it's a subset of Selenium core.

So 2 alternatives here :
. Andrew provides a link to his work derived from Selenium core and we use this link in OPTIONNAL_LIBRARIES.
. We use the link to Selenium core in OPTIONNAL_LIBRARIES.

The second has the advantages that Andrew will not have to take care of anything including updates. The only drawback Andrew underlines is that this file is a lot bigger, with loads of examples and duplication of some files. I guess this is not really a problem as it will be outside of OFBiz SVN trunk. And a link to the orginal work seems more indicated since there are surely some peopke who will want to know more about Selenium.

What do you think folks ?

Is there a problem treating Selenium like shark and the other libraries that are LGPL?

David, Jacques,

What a pain in the rear! There's a lesson to be learned here I think!

So, can we establish what resources are disallowed, do we know if the google license is compatible? How many files in total did you count Jacques?

Assuming we can't proceed further with Selenium, is there another candidate? Selenium seemed best but I'm open to suggestions, I really want to shove this along a bit!

• Andrew

Finishing my thoughts... we could still include selenium tests or the like in OFBiz, just not the tools themselves.

Based on the comment here it doesn't look like we'll be able to include selenium OOTB in OFBiz unless it is possible to use it without the resource of questionable and not allowed licensing.

Andrew,

Mmm... So Selenium is not clear because not only the notice file is missing but they are using a LGPL work in a work ASL2 licenced (without talking about the Google part). If someone has an idea about that please feel free to chime in.

Thanks

Jacques,

Yes, all those files are from the selenium distribution.

• Andrew

Andrew,

The part you used contains the following works and licences :

1.

• The Original Code is the Narcissus JavaScript engine. MPL 1.1

2.
// An XPath parser and evaluator written in JavaScript.
// Copyright 2005 Google Inc.
// All Rights Reserved
// Author: Steffen Meschkat <mesch@google.com>

3.
// Copyright (c) 2005 Thomas Fuchs (http://script.aculo.us, http://mir.aculo.us)
// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
// a copy of this software and associated documentation files...

4.
cssQuery, version 2.0.2 (2005-08-19)
Copyright: 2004-2005, Dean Edwards (http://dean.edwards.name/)
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/

1 & 3 are OK (MPL 1.1 and Public Domain without licence specfied)

2. Is less clear (Google licence ?)

4. LGPL 2.1 is incompatible with ASL2

Are all this files comming from Selenium core ?

Jacques,

Adding the whole selenium core would make it a lot bigger, with loads of examples and duplication of some files - this would be a real mess, so I really don't want to have to go down that route.

• Andrew

Andrew,

Actually after a new look I wonder if it should not be better to use all the core file. At least you have to put in your Selenium patch the licences that are in the core file. Except if you don' t use the corrsponding works (and even I'm not sure of that last point).

Nevertheless after that the notice file normally associated with an ASL2 will still missing. Is that a convention or mandatory is what I have to check in Apache docs.

Exactly, thanks Andrew. My opinion is
1) We may replace it as the one used by selenium is deprecated, but I'm not sure it's ok to do so.
2) Yes what indeed ? I will look at this more (not in selenium but in Apache docs. I have perhaps missed somehting obvious. Or Selenium team has not made its work and some notices are missing at least in last core file (selenium-core-0.8.2.zip). This is what I suspect since they use at least Dojo. But for the moment I just threw a glance.

Thanks for the clarification Andrew.

I think the question is...
1/ Do we replace the Selenium headers with the standard OFBiz ones.
2/ What should we put in the NOTICES file.

Quick question on the license - it appears that both Selenium and OFBiz are using virtually the same license - what is concerning you Jacques?

Andrew,

I will try to continue (undestanding what I shoud do). And if I can't cope with it, hopefully David, or someone else from the PMC, will do it.

Jacques,

Who do we need to ask about this? Is it something David should advise on?

I just tested the new (colored :o) version : fine !
However I still don't know how to handle Selenium licencing.

I will soon check selenium.tar.gz from a licencing point of vIew. Selenium is distributed under ASL2. This file, created by Andrew, is a subset of Selenium core. There is no NOTICES file in the Selenium core original file.

Added missing license headers - thanks Jacques!

Improved version, now uses test-suite stuff, rather than having tests mounted in controller.xml

I just tested. I guess this tool will be very appreciated. You may even make demos by slowing it to max. Even a child can use it, very impressive and useful !

Fixed broken CSS path in js file.

This supercedes the previous tarball

I will review this before letting it to David

extract the selenium tarball in framework/images/webapp/images