OFBIZ-4872: webdriver integration

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

Hi all,

I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add webdriver
testing in OFBiz this week-end.
Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?

Thanks,


--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[Jacques Le Roux]

I have not tested you last patch, but for what I have already seen this sounds good to me

Jacques

From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" <[hidden email]>

> Hi all,
>
> I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add webdriver
> testing in OFBiz this week-end.
> Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Isn't it a good candidate for an external component (i.e. not bundled in OFBiz and maintained by the OFBiz community)? I think we have already discussed this topic some time ago and we concluded that
I also cursorily reviewed the patch and I have seen a series of issues (e.g. hardcoded components name in framework code, hardcoded "localhost", bad formatting, misleading variable names like "component" rather than "application" etc...).

Jacopo

On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add webdriver
> testing in OFBiz this week-end.
> Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

I don't think this should be seen as an external component. The new
implementation is made to be part of OFBiz, like the junit tests we have.
The main issue for selenium integration was the license, there was some
components not consistent with the ASL2. I used ivy to download the jars
only if needed.

Thanks for the review, I will look at the points you listed.

Cheers,

2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>

> Isn't it a good candidate for an external component (i.e. not bundled in
> OFBiz and maintained by the OFBiz community)? I think we have already
> discussed this topic some time ago and we concluded that
> I also cursorily reviewed the patch and I have seen a series of issues
> (e.g. hardcoded components name in framework code, hardcoded "localhost",
> bad formatting, misleading variable names like "component" rather than
> "application" etc...).
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add
> webdriver
> > testing in OFBiz this week-end.
> > Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erwan de FERRIERES
>
>

--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Thank you Erwan, but the information below doesn't help me to change my point of view: the fact that the contribution was made to be part of the trunk and that we already have Junit tests integrated doesn't necessarily imply that we have to add this new one.
What do other think about this topic?

Jacopo

On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

> I don't think this should be seen as an external component. The new
> implementation is made to be part of OFBiz, like the junit tests we have.
> The main issue for selenium integration was the license, there was some
> components not consistent with the ASL2. I used ivy to download the jars
> only if needed.
>
> Thanks for the review, I will look at the points you listed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>
>> Isn't it a good candidate for an external component (i.e. not bundled in
>> OFBiz and maintained by the OFBiz community)? I think we have already
>> discussed this topic some time ago and we concluded that
>> I also cursorily reviewed the patch and I have seen a series of issues
>> (e.g. hardcoded components name in framework code, hardcoded "localhost",
>> bad formatting, misleading variable names like "component" rather than
>> "application" etc...).
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add
>> webdriver
>>> testing in OFBiz this week-end.
>>> Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

Jacopo,
using localhost is the way it should be. Like you are running unit tests on
your local instance, you are running functional tests on your local
instance.
This patch is only adding a new testing type which is not existing today.
It's why it is designed to be part of OFBiz as a new functionality and not
an external component.
In this case, a complete component would have been designed, and would not
be so coupled with OFBiz.

Cheers,


2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>

> Thank you Erwan, but the information below doesn't help me to change my
> point of view: the fact that the contribution was made to be part of the
> trunk and that we already have Junit tests integrated doesn't necessarily
> imply that we have to add this new one.
> What do other think about this topic?
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>
> > I don't think this should be seen as an external component. The new
> > implementation is made to be part of OFBiz, like the junit tests we have.
> > The main issue for selenium integration was the license, there was some
> > components not consistent with the ASL2. I used ivy to download the jars
> > only if needed.
> >
> > Thanks for the review, I will look at the points you listed.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > 2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> Isn't it a good candidate for an external component (i.e. not bundled in
> >> OFBiz and maintained by the OFBiz community)? I think we have already
> >> discussed this topic some time ago and we concluded that
> >> I also cursorily reviewed the patch and I have seen a series of issues
> >> (e.g. hardcoded components name in framework code, hardcoded
> "localhost",
> >> bad formatting, misleading variable names like "component" rather than
> >> "application" etc...).
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add
> >> webdriver
> >>> testing in OFBiz this week-end.
> >>> Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Erwan de FERRIERES
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erwan de FERRIERES
>
>

--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[lemine youssef]

Hi every one,

At Nereide, we were using selenium four our functional test for two
years at lest but
Selenium staff was integrated as a maven sub project which is not very
simple
to use and does not meet our needs and expectations.

Two month ago, I started using the patch proposed by Erwan (thank you
Erwan) attached to this
JIRA and I'm very satisfied of results for many reason :

-Test can be executed on our continuous integration platform (Jenkins)
in a simple way.
-We have the choice to use suites to run.
-Integration with external test platform provider like Sauce-lab is very
easy;

Of course, I have made some change to allow :
-running single suite;
-get Jenkins environment variables (job name build number and pass theme
to sauce lab so that test result are easily identified).

Here an example of ofbiz functional test executed on sauce lab :
https://saucelabs.com/tests/2270f57699ff4458a1a9818f108ce4b8

BTW,
1- Without a function test framework, we were unable to guarantee some
quality for user experience
and our application so stability. In my point of view selenium
integration is almost a must.
2- I don't see Selenium as an alternative of Junit framework but as a
complementary tool.

Thanks again.

On 15/11/2012 17:46, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:

> Jacopo,
> using localhost is the way it should be. Like you are running unit tests on
> your local instance, you are running functional tests on your local
> instance.
> This patch is only adding a new testing type which is not existing today.
> It's why it is designed to be part of OFBiz as a new functionality and not
> an external component.
> In this case, a complete component would have been designed, and would not
> be so coupled with OFBiz.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> 2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>
>> Thank you Erwan, but the information below doesn't help me to change my
>> point of view: the fact that the contribution was made to be part of the
>> trunk and that we already have Junit tests integrated doesn't necessarily
>> imply that we have to add this new one.
>> What do other think about this topic?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think this should be seen as an external component. The new
>>> implementation is made to be part of OFBiz, like the junit tests we have.
>>> The main issue for selenium integration was the license, there was some
>>> components not consistent with the ASL2. I used ivy to download the jars
>>> only if needed.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review, I will look at the points you listed.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> 2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Isn't it a good candidate for an external component (i.e. not bundled in
>>>> OFBiz and maintained by the OFBiz community)? I think we have already
>>>> discussed this topic some time ago and we concluded that
>>>> I also cursorily reviewed the patch and I have seen a series of issues
>>>> (e.g. hardcoded components name in framework code, hardcoded
>> "localhost",
>>>> bad formatting, misleading variable names like "component" rather than
>>>> "application" etc...).
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add
>>>> webdriver
>>>>> testing in OFBiz this week-end.
>>>>> Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>>
>

--
Youssef Khaye
Développeur
Tel : [phone]
Mob : [phone]

Société Néréide
3b Les Isles 37270 Veretz
www.nereide.biz

[Jacques Le Roux]

Sounds indeed logical to have embedded a mean to test the UI available to all user OOTB.
Even if  not all users will use it, some have already their own way.
At least something would exist and I don't see any objective reasons to reject it out of OFBiz.

Note: I intentionally used the verb reject, because it seems it how some contributors are now feeling the way the OFBiz project is doing with their proposed contributions

Jacques

From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" <[hidden email]>

> Jacopo,
> using localhost is the way it should be. Like you are running unit tests on
> your local instance, you are running functional tests on your local
> instance.
> This patch is only adding a new testing type which is not existing today.
> It's why it is designed to be part of OFBiz as a new functionality and not
> an external component.
> In this case, a complete component would have been designed, and would not
> be so coupled with OFBiz.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> 2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>
>> Thank you Erwan, but the information below doesn't help me to change my
>> point of view: the fact that the contribution was made to be part of the
>> trunk and that we already have Junit tests integrated doesn't necessarily
>> imply that we have to add this new one.
>> What do other think about this topic?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think this should be seen as an external component. The new
>> > implementation is made to be part of OFBiz, like the junit tests we have.
>> > The main issue for selenium integration was the license, there was some
>> > components not consistent with the ASL2. I used ivy to download the jars
>> > only if needed.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the review, I will look at the points you listed.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > 2012/11/15 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>> >
>> >> Isn't it a good candidate for an external component (i.e. not bundled in
>> >> OFBiz and maintained by the OFBiz community)? I think we have already
>> >> discussed this topic some time ago and we concluded that
>> >> I also cursorily reviewed the patch and I have seen a series of issues
>> >> (e.g. hardcoded components name in framework code, hardcoded
>> "localhost",
>> >> bad formatting, misleading variable names like "component" rather than
>> >> "application" etc...).
>> >>
>> >> Jacopo
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm planning on committing the patch in OFBIZ-4872 which will add
>> >> webdriver
>> >>> testing in OFBiz this week-end.
>> >>> Is that OK for everyone, or are there some issues with this ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Erwan de FERRIERES
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Note: I intentionally used the verb reject, because it seems it how some contributors are now feeling the way the OFBiz project is doing with their proposed contributions

I understand that this "feeling" could indeed happen but unfortunately it is a side effect of the most important goal that is to make sure that the OFBiz codebase is consistent, maintainable by the community and its quality is high.
It is in our role of committers and PMC members to do our best to explain this to the contributors, rather than trying to induce them to think that there are some evil guys that feel pleasure in rejecting other's great ideas.

Jacopo

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Sounds indeed logical to have embedded a mean to test the UI available to all user OOTB.

Why embedded? All users already have a mechanism to test the UI: they can use Selenium or any other similar tool of their preference. We should not

> Even if  not all users will use it, some have already their own way.

The way I see it is that no one in the project community (nor from the committer groups) asked for this implementation and very few ones showed interest for this.
Who is using it in this community? Jacques, did you test it and are you using it?

Regards,

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes, but I have also this feeling, may I?

I have even a feeling that OFBiz is currently fossilising :/

This is my opinion

Jacques


From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Note: I intentionally used the verb reject, because it seems it how some contributors are now feeling the way the OFBiz project is doing with their proposed contributions
>
> I understand that this "feeling" could indeed happen but unfortunately it is a side effect of the most important goal that is to make sure that the OFBiz codebase is consistent, maintainable by the community and its quality is high.
> It is in our role of committers and PMC members to do our best to explain this to the contributors, rather than trying to induce them to think that there are some evil guys that feel pleasure in rejecting other's great ideas.
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Sounds indeed logical to have embedded a mean to test the UI available to all user OOTB.
>
> Why embedded? All users already have a mechanism to test the UI: they can use Selenium or any other similar tool of their preference. We should not
>
>> Even if  not all users will use it, some have already their own way.
>
> The way I see it is that no one in the project community (nor from the committer groups) asked for this implementation and very few ones showed interest for this.
> Who is using it in this community? Jacques, did you test it and are you using it?

I must say I don't. The Neogia team is. And they are an important part of the OFBiz ecosystem. Their efforts should not be neglected. Erwan is no longer part of the Neogia team but he is still in contact with them. At least AFAIK...

This is my opinion

Jacques
 
> Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

2012/12/5 Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>

> On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> > Sounds indeed logical to have embedded a mean to test the UI available
> to all user OOTB.
>
> Why embedded? All users already have a mechanism to test the UI: they can
> use Selenium or any other similar tool of their preference. We should not


webdriver is the selenium evolution, and this implementation is more
developer oriented than users.
This patch and effort are more a developer tool, where you write your tests
then run them locally, or as Youssef showed on an external service, like
the one offered by saucelab.
One more advantage is that you can run a full scenario, as you would do
with selenium.
Embedding this kind of tests is like the unit test framework which is
embedded in OFBiz. We are using external tools to reinforce the code
quality. From my POV, having a web interface is making the interface tests
mandatory. We are just going one step further in the global confidence.


> > Even if  not all users will use it, some have already their own way.
>
> The way I see it is that no one in the project community (nor from the
> committer groups) asked for this implementation and very few ones showed
> interest for this.
> Who is using it in this community? Jacques, did you test it and are you
> using it?
>
I asked for this to be added to OFBiz, and I didn't want to push it by
force, but wanted to have code reviews by other members before.
The neogia team is using it, and most of the developments are consolidated
with unit and webdriver tests.

>
> Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>


--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I must say I don't. The Neogia team is. And they are an important part of the OFBiz ecosystem. Their efforts should not be neglected. Erwan is no longer part of the Neogia team but he is still in contact with them. At least AFAIK...

This is an interesting point: the Neogia team (company? community?) is important as any other contributor; however they are a separate ecosystem that a long time ago decided to split from OFBiz and develop their own software, best practices, tools etc.. at the point that now the OFBiz community and the Neogia community may have choosen quite different tools and best practices; of course the members of the Neogia team think that what they do is the right way and the same happens to the members of the OFBiz community;  if the Neogia community now wants to share some of their tools or best practices they can offer them, but we, as the OFBiz community, should not feel any pressure to endorse them; and the fact that all the members of the Neogia team agree that the tools are important is irrelevant (of course they do, if not they would have changed them).

All that said, I want to clarify that I am not feeling any pressure and no one at Neogia tried to put pressure on me so I am good and I appreciate their efforts in sharing with us what they are doing; in the same time I will not feel bad if I don't think they are a good fit for the OFBiz project (and the fact that I, or we,  and them could be in disagreement on some topics is quite natural as we come from two different ecosystems that voluntarily separated from each other).

Kind regards,

Jacopo

[Olivier.heintz]

Le 05/12/2012 11:29, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Note: I intentionally used the verb reject, because it seems it how some contributors are now feeling the way the OFBiz project is doing with their proposed contributions
> I understand that this "feeling" could indeed happen but unfortunately it is a side effect of the most important goal that is to make sure that the OFBiz codebase is consistent, maintainable by the community and its quality is high.
And so, having clear rules and process describing how to do.
> It is in our role of committers and PMC members to do our best to explain this to the contributors,
When you see all answers Jacques do to users or contributors, he always
explains and argues with mail or code. So attack him on this subject
seems inappropriate.
> rather than trying to induce them to think that there are some evil guys that feel pleasure in rejecting other's great ideas.
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:

> So attack him on this subject seems inappropriate.

Olivier, I am not *attacking* anyone, we are discussing and not fighting so please do your best to keep the conversation in the right mood.

Jacopo

[Olivier.heintz]

Le 05/12/2012 11:52, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Sounds indeed logical to have embedded a mean to test the UI available to all user OOTB.
> Why embedded? All users already have a mechanism to test the UI:
test the UI is one of the important quality criteria, so it would seem
important to have UI test on OFBiz for OFBiz standard UI. So code for
one  tool.
>  they can use Selenium or any other similar tool of their preference.
To help contribution and share, it seem important to have, at least, one
tool as default. The goal is not the other tools are bad, but to help
collaboration.
>  We should not
>
>> Even if  not all users will use it, some have already their own way.
> The way I see it is that no one in the project community (nor from the committer groups) asked for this implementation
If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
quality, ...) the project, not to force or constrain to work only on a
short list of subject.

Erwan works on software quality from a long time and it's not its first
contributions on this subject. I don't understand why he should wait
someone ask him to work on it.
> and very few ones showed interest for this.
> Who is using it in this community? Jacques, did you test it and are you using it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:

> If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
> animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
> quality, ...) the project, not to force or constrain to work only on a
> short list of subject.

Correct, and no one is *forcing* anyone (again, please help to keep the conversation relaxed): the committer group is helping to show some of the priorities of the project but anyone is free to work on different tasks; but of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the committers will have to make it part of the project even if they do not think it is a good fit (here I am talking in general, not on this specific topic).

>
> Erwan works on software quality from a long time and it's not its first
> contributions on this subject. I don't understand why he should wait
> someone ask him to work on it.

See above (of course Erwan is free to work on what he wants but if he wants to commit it to OFBiz and there are concerns in the committer group they have to be addressed).

Jacopo

[Olivier.heintz]

Le 06/12/2012 08:07, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I must say I don't. The Neogia team is. And they are an important part of the OFBiz ecosystem. Their efforts should not be neglected. Erwan is no longer part of the Neogia team but he is still in contact with them. At least AFAIK...
> This is an interesting point: the Neogia team (company? community?) is important as any other contributor; however they are a separate ecosystem that a long time ago decided to split from OFBiz and develop their own software, best practices, tools etc.. at the point that now the OFBiz community and the Neogia community may have choosen quite different tools and best practices;
The number of difference are not so big. and one of our (OFBiz and
Neogia) biggest common denominator is our commitment to help Apache
OFBiz Project and Its community, even it's not by the same way.
>  of course the members of the Neogia team think that what they do is the right way and the same happens to the members of the OFBiz community;  if the Neogia community now wants to share some of their tools or best practices they can offer them,
share to ofbiz has always been a desire on our part but
- on one hand sometime there are licensing constraints (we use GPL
libraries)
- and other hand a large lack of communication on our part
>  but we, as the OFBiz community, should not feel any pressure to endorse them; and the fact that all the members of the Neogia team agree that the tools are important is irrelevant (of course they do, if not they would have changed them).
>
> All that said, I want to clarify that I am not feeling any pressure and no one at Neogia tried to put pressure on me so I am good and I appreciate their efforts in sharing with us what they are doing; in the same time I will not feel bad if I don't think they are a good fit for the OFBiz project (and the fact that I, or we,  and them could be in disagreement on some topics is quite natural as we come from two different ecosystems that voluntarily separated from each other).
We (me most of the time) are trying to have better communication since
one year and we really try to argue on ideas and requirement and not to
impose our existing tools or our choices.
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
Olivier for Neogia Team

[Scott Gray-2]

On 7/12/2012, at 12:43 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

>
> On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
>
>> If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
>> animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
>> quality, ...) the project, not to force or constrain to work only on a
>> short list of subject.
>
> Correct, and no one is *forcing* anyone (again, please help to keep the conversation relaxed): the committer group is helping to show some of the priorities of the project but anyone is free to work on different tasks; but of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the committers will have to make it part of the project even if they do not think it is a good fit (here I am talking in general, not on this specific topic).
>
>>
>> Erwan works on software quality from a long time and it's not its first
>> contributions on this subject. I don't understand why he should wait
>> someone ask him to work on it.
>
> See above (of course Erwan is free to work on what he wants but if he wants to commit it to OFBiz and there are concerns in the committer group they have to be addressed).
>
> Jacopo

One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of the work for OFBiz before starting.  I find it frustrating that reviewers are then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in the work.

In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a good feature?" test.  Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should be made well aware of that before starting.

Regards
Scott