Thanks a lot Luca. It's very helpful. I want to clarify : I've changed the way signals are working in liblarch.
Before, signals were : added/modified/deleted(node_id, list_of_paths) now, I've replaced list_of_paths by an individual path. It makes signals closer of the gtk.TreeModel and of what is happening really in the tree. It means that, if you remove a node with 3 paths, we will now send 3 signals. Also, signal modified is used only if the path doesn't change. If path changes, we send a deleted then a add signal. -s standard is now working perfectly for me on liblarch_rebased. Not one single error. -s bryce still gives me plenty of errors but they are all liblarch errors. I would be really interested if someone could translate those errors into tests. Lionel Le samedi 14 août 2010 à 02:13 +0200, Luca Invernizzi a écrit : > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Lionel Dricot <[email protected]> wrote: > > This new FT pass all the tests currently (Luca, can you have a look ? > > There are some crashes in the tests although the report says it's fine). > > It's fun to rewrite code with test, you feel a lot more confident ;-) > > > Copying-n-pasting the commit message > """ > Testing was giving signal errors, now they're fixed. > The errors were caused by the testing function that was waiting for > more signals > than those that were actually emitted (apparently, we're sending > less signals now). > However, the test were passing notwithstanding that, because among the > signals > that were received there were the ones we were looking for. > > To be clearer, now, if a signal fails, it also prints out the row of > the testing > function that failed. This way, it's easy to find out which signal is > misbehaving. > """ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
