(Top-posting from webmail) Yes, we should try to add tests to qtbase when a bug is caught by a qtdeclarative test, just like we add tests for any other bug fix.
http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,19582 broke qquicktextinput. http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,20286 fixed it, but no new test was added. For http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,19591 I requested at test, but apparently there's some IPv4 vs 6 special configuration needed for it to make sense. I don't know why the test can't be in qtbase; the TestHTTPServer that was crashing in qtdeclarative is running on the local host, I don't think it's doing anything super-special. But I'm not a network guy. :) I'm not out to put the blame on individual commits. I'm saying it's _good_ that qtdeclarative exercises so much of qtbase, and that we should use that to our advantage in the CI if we can. Kent ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Rodal Samuel (Nokia-MP/Oslo) Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] The qtbase CI should run the qtdeclarative tests 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 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
