On segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012 08.01.41, [email protected] wrote: > >Yes, in some ways I feel this is adding complexity to the test setup to > >work around a "false simplicity" in our source code setup. We claim > >that Qt is modular, but actually we know some parts of it are not really, > >so we add gates to enforce some level of de-modularization. > > The main problem here is that our test coverage of qtbase in itself is not > good enough in some areas. So we have to cover this up by adding > declarative tests in thus implicitly raising test coverage of qtbase.
While the statement is true, I don't think it's the cause of the problem.
qtdeclarative is well-known for depending on the internals of QtCore and
QtGui. Internals are not unit-tested and will probably never be.
So the breaking of qtdeclarative will continue to happen, unless we test it
specifically.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
