On Wed, 16 May 2018 18:01:40 +0200
Federico Frenguelli <synas...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If functions were properly supported as properties, there'd be a simple
> > generic solution:
> >
> > AutotestRunner {
> >     additionalArgsFunc: function(testArtifact)  {
> >         var myArgs = [];
> >         var additionalImportPaths =
> > testArtifact.quickpaths.additionalImportPaths;
> >         for (var i in additionalImportPaths)
> >              myArgs.push("-import", additionalImportPaths[i]);
> >         return myArgs;
> >     })
> > }
> >
> > In fact, I think this is already possible, though the implementation (on
> > the AutotestRunner side) would look rather awful, involving eval().
> > So maybe that's the way to go? Higher-level concepts might not be flexible
> > enough. For instance, the approach sketched above also allows you to get
> > the necessary information from product or project properties, or even from
> > the environment.
> >  
> 
>  That could be a clear and flexible solution but is it possible to use
> function properties? Or you were thinking of wrapping the function
> definition in a string??

I think it can work like this already, using a variant property. 


Christian
_______________________________________________
Qbs mailing list
Qbs@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qbs

Reply via email to