It's often easier to port tests to get the breakout I need that is hard to do by chaining test runners. Plus I need to get in there and setup some fuzzers, which is very not like tut.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> wrote: > I always thought GEOS tests are dead simple based on lightweight runner. > > If something is missing, just add it and submit to GEOS. > > Rewriting tests just for the sake of making them based on GTest. > Well... > > Mateusz > > On 21 Feb 2017 8:10 p.m., "Kurt Schwehr" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The geos coverage is okay, but I have a hard time working with it. I've >> mostly been putting tests for libs that GDAL can be dependent on for lack >> of another place to put them as I can push the code. >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 21 February 2017 at 14:01, Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Kurt Schwehr-2 wrote >>> >> Well, it would be great if the GDAL community wants to merge that >>> code. >>> > >>> > +1 - I'd welcome it >>> >>> Is re-writing tests of GDAL dependencies part of the big plan? >>> https://github.com/schwehr/gdal-autotest2/commit/e65e6d5aa03 >>> 753c4b9a67e2cec6a8bdbe0997a80) >>> >>> AFAIK, GEOS is covered with tests pretty well. >>> >>> Best regards. >>> -- >>> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gdal-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> http://schwehr.org >> > -- -- http://schwehr.org
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
