On segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012 14.28.35, Kent Hansen wrote: > Den 19. mars 2012 10:32, skrev ext Thiago Macieira: > > 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. > > None of the breakages I've seen in the last few weeks have been due to > depending on qtbase internals. > Where are the parts in qtdeclarative where depending on internals are > likely to cause problems? Maybe we can clean that up some more.
I expect the kernel: metatype, metaobject system and event delivery.
Anyway, where *are* the breakages? Last time this happened, I asked you to
tell us where the breakages are so we could be more careful with the changes.
--
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
