BetaTestCoverage

Recommended test areas & coverage

Coverage area	User	Tasks or Notes

Should we endeavour to test against both mod_fastcgi and mod_fcgi for Apache?

• libapache2-mod-fastcgi
• libapache2-mod-fcgid

Then there's Windows

1. I had real trouble getting FastCGI working on Windows until I discovered a fix and binary for mod_fastcgi
   • Tasks.Item1315
2. There is a fork of mod_fastcgi here: https://github.com/ByteInternet/libapache-mod-fastcgi/
   • It appears to be based on the version I picked up in 2009 with minor corrections
     • Pro: The code base is stable
     • Con: it's hard to find a Windows binary of the module to install for Apache
     • Con: not everyone (especially on Windows?) wants to build from source - businesses may even shy away from this
3. mod_fcgid is under Apache Foundation control
   • Should we just test with this module as a result?

Indeed should our test coverage include Windows in addition to linux (and which distros?)

Some of the above is for our internal consideration, other stuff is for Foswiki customers - should we not for a release state clearly the test coverage albeit making it clear that a non-tested distro (or Windows etc) will probably still work and you can still ask the community/consultants for help.

-- JulianLevens - 31 Mar 2015

---

Initial notes on test installation in shared hosting environment (Dreamhost)

• Following the "5-Minute Install" process, the only glitch was with step 2 regarding apache configuration. Suggest adding this: In shared hosting environment where you don't have access to apache config files, move the file in root of foswiki installation call "bin-htaccess.txt" into the bin directory and rename it ".htaccess". This is all it took to make configure work.
• Need to add some addition instructions after installation for sequence of creating first user and adding to admin group. (more notes to follow...)
• Noticed that configure no longer has server information. Seems like this would be useful to provide under separate tab.
• Attempting to install extensions pretty much blew up but that's been noted elsewhere.
• One UI comment regarding the extension installation: the "action" buttons (Install, upgrade, etc) are too big for the space allocated and get scrunched together, or even hide each other, making it hard to determine which plugin each button is associated. Thoughts on possible fixes:
  • Bar between each plugin
  • Wider dialog and put buttons side-by-side
  • smaller buttons using icons and titles (when hovering). Being as the actions are few and predictable, it seems like non-labeled icons would be simple enough to understand and less cluttered.

-- LynnwoodBrown - 13 Apr 2015