On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:57:31 +0200 Federico Frenguelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 10:25, Christian Kandeler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 May 2018 18:01:40 +0200 > > Federico Frenguelli <[email protected]> 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. > > > I tried to test your proposal but unfortunately that syntax is not > supported. What do you mean by that? > Is it possible to access a product's properties from the artifact? Artifact objects have a "product" property, which gives you the product object. Christian _______________________________________________ Qbs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qbs
