----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128398/#review97444 -----------------------------------------------------------
I'd recommend making a new unittest with simply a QStandardItemModel as source model (and switching to another one). Use text-based comparisons to check the contents of the proxy model. You can use kextracolumnsproxymodeltest.cpp as an example. I don't really understand kdescendantsproxymodel_smoketest.cpp either, but it seems to mostly monitor for signals, not really for actual expected outcome of the proxymodel. - David Faure On July 8, 2016, 2:58 a.m., Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128398/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 8, 2016, 2:58 a.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks, Stephen Kelly and Stephen Kelly. > > > Repository: kitemmodels > > > Description > ------- > > KDescendantsProxyModel currently does not reset its internal data when a > (new) source model is set. > > Not sure the provided patch is the most correct one, but it works with the > current unit tests and for the use case where this bug was hit. > I am still confused why > `KDescendantsProxyModelPrivate::synchronousMappingRefresh()` loops over > `while (!m_pendingParents.isEmpty())` on calling `processPendingParents();` > while `KDescendantsProxyModelPrivate::scheduleProcessPendingParents()` does > not. > Especially when the `KDescendantsProxyModelPrivate::sourceModelReset()` > handler also only calls the latter. > The sourceModelReset handler should be surely similar to what is done on > setting a new source model, so the patch for now copies that code. But from > what I understood by reading the code both of them should rather do a full > loop perhaps? > > And `m_relayouting` should get a better name now, but no idea yet what would > be nice. > > I have yet to grasp the proxymodeltest system to also write a matching unit > test, any proposal where I should start? > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/kdescendantsproxymodel.cpp 477cd96 > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128398/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Existing kitemmodels unit tests still pass. > > > Thanks, > > Friedrich W. H. Kossebau > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
