Hi. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Jaime <jtam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right. I forgot about the tests that check something will fail > with invalid input. > > Rigtht now, I only get 3 failures in nepomuk (without QT_FATAL_WARNINGS). > Which tests don't pass in Nepomuk? I just tried the tests in kdelibs/nepomuk/test and they all passed. ( without QT_FATAL_WARNINGS ) > > And kglobaltest fails only when I have QT_NO_GLIB=1 (I used to have it > because of flash plugin, but not any longer). > > I'll check from time to time some applications with QT_FATAL_WARNINGS=1 > then. > > Best Regards. > > 2010/12/9 David Faure <fa...@kde.org>: > > On Tuesday 07 December 2010, Jaime wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've run the kdelibs with the environment variable > QT_FATAL_WARNINGS=1, > >> and the number of failed tests has grown in a noticeable way. (also with > 2 > >> crashes). > >> > >> I guess that less Qt warnings usually means less unexpected crashes. > >> Therefore I suggest to add that variable to the test target, and if it > is > >> possible, to fix the failed unittests before 4.6.0 is released. > > > > I disagree that this makes sense. > > > > $ ./kconfigguitest > > ********* Start testing of KConfigTest ********* > > Config: Using QTest library 4.7.0, Qt 4.7.0 > > PASS : KConfigTest::initTestCase() > > PASS : KConfigTest::testComplex() > > QWARN : KConfigTest::testInvalid() QColor::setNamedColor: Unknown color > name > > '1' > > > > Yes, this will crash with QT_FATAL_WARNINGS. So? It's good to have a unit > test > > test border conditions too, even if these conditions lead to warnings > from Qt. > > > > I think this setting makes sense for applications, but not for unit > tests. > > > > On the other hand I'm more interested in what failures you see -without- > > QT_FATAL_WARNINGS? > > > > -- > > David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr > > Sponsored by Nokia to work on KDE, incl. Konqueror ( > http://www.konqueror.org). > > > -- Vishesh Handa
