Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/08/09/14:24:48
Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> So not having heard back on the question of how we wanted to do tests,
> I decided it would be better to go with glib-based g_test_* testing,
> instead of the end-to-end tests in the tests subdir. The main reason
> is that this will make it possible to directly test interfaces that
> aren't exposed as actions.
>
> Currently only pcb-printf uses this approach, and since it's a
> stand-alone interface it (correctly) doesn't create a full pcb context
> for it's tests to run in. However, many other tests require more
> context.
> Therefore what I intend to do is:
>
> * leave the existing unittest about as it is. All tests of
> stand-alone modules in pcb can go there
>
> * make a new main-contex_tests.c or something that provides everything
> you would find in a running pcb instance except the gui stuff. I've
> already got this working it just needs split off from the existing
> unittest and some cleanup.
>
> If this isn't ok please let me know now.
>
> Britton
>
>
Hi Britton,
Sorry for the delayed response, a busy project at the day job is eating
all my free cycles.
FWIW, here goes some of my rants:
If we use the existing units test methods for testing hids and GUIs,
would that imply we also need all the dependencies for testing GUIs not
suported by the OS, for instance: do we need to have GTK installed for
testing a "no-gui" target ?
Or is a modular testing approach more flexible ?
Test if the framework is availble and usable before commencing the tests
for that framework.
Would depending on a glib based test harm us on platforms (OS'es) not
supporting glib or such ?
Just a couple of things that came up ... have to dig deeper into the
testing methods.
Kind regards,
Bert Timmerman.
- Raw text -