On 4/2/19 5:14 PM, Mitch Curtis wrote: > As described in https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-66320, currently Qt > users are on their own if they want to call helper functions that can fail a > test. The reason is documented: > > Note: This macro can only be used in a test function that is invoked by > the test framework. > > A common workaround for this is to make the helper function return a bool > indicating success or failure, and pass in a QString reference which is set > to the failure message (if any). > > I don't know how many people reading this have written comprehensive auto > tests for an application, but not having helper functions is just not an > option if you want maintainable code.
This is massively annoying, and also a reason for - either writing longish macros that should be functions instead - duplicated code in tests. > I looked into this briefly during the last hackathon we had, and from what I > found, throwing an exception was the best approach: > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/248490/ To me this looks promising. I wonder if qtestlib could catch a dedicated QTestException instead to avoid the need of the QCHECK_EXCEPTION macro. Cheers, Joerg _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
