On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:02:40AM -0400, muppet wrote: > This is likely to break code that expects that property to be an > object property. You never know who is using these things.
This is absolutely right - Federico raised this concern, and the first test I talked about was an attempt to prove this. > Would it be reasonable to have the object property be a proxy for the > style proxy, to retain compatibility? I think so - the current revision of my patch installs it as both a g_object property and a GtkSetting. In honesty, I don't know what 'be a proxy for the style property' means! [Note that all revisions of my patch that use GtkSetting are broken in a fundamental way - previous revisions which installed it as a gtk style property appeared to work. I've yet to figure out why] > The perl bindings[1] have an extensive API regression test suite[2]. > This suite uses the standard perl test framework with some Gtk2- > related enhancements (auto-init of gtk+, and some helpers to make > deferred tests cleaner), and exists mainly to verify that we call the > bound APIs correctly. That is, we test the validity of the bindings, > not the correctness of the bound API itself. > ... > So, i can vouch for the usefulness of an automated suite, and point > to an example of how we set one up. I have heard good things about perl's testing framework. I've never used it from a developer end but I have had several pieces of software fail to install as a result of their regression tests failing :-) I think it would be an excellent idea to study their framework. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ PGP fingerprint: 7032F238 _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
