On 09.06.07 11:13:54, David Faure wrote: > On Friday 08 June 2007, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > > Andreas Pakulat said: > > > On 08.06.07 00:34:17, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > >> Not sure we need this. If it just adds add_test() to > > >> kde4_add_test_executable() it might more confuse than help. > > > > > > Well, kde4_add_unit_test is simply just a little convenience macro to > > > not having to remember to use both kde4_add_test_executable and > > > add_test. > > > > I'd say that kde4_add_test should do what the name says: add_test. We can > > have another macro to create and build executables that aren't unit tests. > > > > I argue for that because we want people to create unit tests whenever > > possible. As such, the short name should belong to the most common action. > > The longer name can be used for the exceptions. > > We need unit tests and we need example programs, there is no "common" and > "exception" in there. > > kde4_add_test_executable and kde4_add_unit_test seem nice to me - both > high-level enough so that > you only have to call one of them, depending on whether something is a unit > test or an example program. > > If we call the first macro something that doesn't include "test" (like > kde4_add_example_executable), > then it will get confusing, because this macros means "build this if > KDE4_BUILD_TESTS is set"...
So I'll do the rename during the weekend (all of trunk/KDE), as the KProcess-Stuff is sorted out for kdelibs already. That is wherever currently kde4_add_test() and add_test() are used it gets kde4_add_unit_test. Wherever kde4_add_test is used without add_test() it gets kde4_add_test_executable. Objections? Andreas -- Your reasoning powers are good, and you are a fairly good planner. _______________________________________________ Kde-buildsystem mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
