On Friday 25 October 2013 14:19:49 Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > 2013/10/25 David Faure <fa...@kde.org>: > > On Wednesday 02 October 2013 23:52:08 Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > >> In fact, I wonder if we should make all tests console applications by > >> default (in ecm_mark_as_test?)... > > > > All unittests, yes. > > > > But interactive test apps are really just normal test apps, there's no > > reason for them to behave differently from actual apps. > > Many interactive test apps communicate via console messages, or expect > command-line arguments and show help on the console if you don't pass > any.
Many as in, more than one, quite possibly. But the majority? I'm not sure. It's my impression that most of them just pop up a window to show a given widget. Example: tier3/ktextwidgets/tests/ktextedittest All the ones in xmlgui/tests iirc. kcodecactiontest fits into your description though: it works without cmdline args, but uses qDebug to tell you about the methods being called. This doesn't technically require a terminal - one can use DebugView.exe to view debug messages, or one can just run the app in QtCreator. But OK, a terminal doesn't hurt and makes it a little bit more convenient. I withdraw my objection then, I guess. Let them have a console, for easier debugging. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5 _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
