Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"

[floeff]

Hello,

one of the approved [1] tenders is the

  Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)

The board would like to work together in public with all of you on this tender before it gets officially published. The current draft is therefore shared at

  https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/f7K2dxck7o8sP4A

The board is happy to get your feedback and proposals, ideally until Friday's public board call. [2] Please send your feedback to the public board-discuss@documentfoundation.org mailing list.

Those with a conflict of interest (i.e. potential bidders) will be excluded from the point on the tender is published and evaluated.

Looking forward to your feedback!
Florian

[1] https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04477.html

[2] https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04715.html

[Lothar_K_Becker]

Hi all,

I have a few questions about the specified solution with this XRAY-Debugger tender:

a) (Completeness of the specification) Isn't it appropriate to assign the right Version of LibO and the UNO API to it, at least what is the version
(or with what LibO Version delivered)  the "WatchCode"-Implementation should be used for the UI work? Which version of the XRAY and MRI tool is here
relevant, at least say "the latest" with a hint for a source for them.

b) (Feature request) I miss this great feature to have a code autocompletion, for example in VS you can set the "." as referenciator and that get the
possible services or DOM Tree alternatives or... and also complete the parameter part when hitting return (or is this meant with the Copy & Paste feature?)

c) (Completeness of the specification) It is mentioned, that "everywhere where possible" to lean on automatic testing. Well, to be honest, this is a
huge field. Shouldn't we specify this a little bit more in detail, what we do expect here? Are there automatic test tools we are already using which
we want to see or for which we want to have the automation scripts or ...?

d) (Details in the proposal) I would also expect a detailed estimation in the sense that it is not just a figure but at least one for each mentioned
feature in the mandatory as well as in the optional part. If they are proposing other features (not mentioned here) they should do it as well with a
figure for it. Is it mentioned anywhere?

Thanks in advance for any comments/feedback
Lothar