Hi, On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote: > On 2013-04-04 10:53, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > >Well, IMHO the main problem with the unoapi tests wrt this is that > >they 'centralized' a lot of the expectations on the UNO-Api -- > >which made them hard to quickly rewrite in C++. > > >If this leads to more reliable tests of any kind, which will turn > >into tests of the C++ kind when they first fail, Im all for it. > > These two statements are mutually contradictory. Either Java/Python > unit tests are easy to convert to C++, or they are not, you can't > have it both ways :-)
No: The unoapi tests are hard to convert (not because of them being in Java, but because of the qadevOOo framework needing a C++ equivalent), the complex tests are not. > Besides, LO is a C++ program - if you can already code in C++, why > would you want to switch to a different language to write a unit > test? Because there are people willing to write Python tests but unable (or unwilling to invest the time) to write C++ tests? I dont see that as a problem. A reliable test should succeed almost always -- and in that case it doesnt matter in what language it is written in. If it fails, its probably well worth the time to reimplement it in C++ proper. But I see little reason to dogmatically write all tests in C++ as: - more people can write tests in Python - there are tests that might never fail (and hopefully they are the majority) and the language they are written in does not matter at all in that case Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
