On 03/19/2012 03:18 PM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > 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.
Indeed, it might be a good idea to start adding auto-tests in qtbase whenever there's an auto-test that fails in qtdeclarative etc. -- Samuel _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
