> On Aug 13, 2025, at 11:50, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development > <development@qt-project.org> wrote: > > Il 13/08/25 11:40, Tor Arne Vestbø ha scritto: >>> On 13 Aug 2025, at 11:30, Giuseppe D'Angelo via >>> Development<development@qt-project.org> wrote: >>> >>> More on topic: if ultimately it is platform specific whether show() alone >>> is sufficient or one needs show()+requestAcivate() (+ QVERIFY), couldn't >>> this combination be packaged in some QtTest helper function, so that people >>> can simply call that function and it'll always do the right >> Yes. Though we should stive to use it only when the test actually requires >> focus. Running tests locally with windows that steal focus unnecessarily is >> a bit annoying. Of course these things are typically cargo-culled, which is >> how we probably ended up with the current state of every test requesting >> activation explicitly after show. > > A packaged function would actually allow for an easier way out of the cargo > cult, as one could centrally switch its implementation from > show()+requestActivate() to show() alone and start monitor exactly what > breaks after that, then investigate why.
Exactly. Succinct tests that use standardized reusable functions are easier to maintain. (Or if they all break at once in the future, at least we have one place to fix the problem.) -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development