On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:37:01PM +0200, Marco Hugentobler wrote: > > What has to be maintained about testcases ? > > The only reason to change a testcase would be a change in the underlying > > classes interfaces, which is one of the causes for instability, so having > > testcases that break might be an aim to keep APIs stable. > > I can think of several reason why the testcase need changes and the > maintainance is not 0 (usually there are even more cases in practice): > > - The dependencies of QGIS do change (both in API and in behaviour). Most > tests use Qt classes. The Qt API _and_ behaviour can change. Anybody > remembers > the switch from Qt3 to Qt4? It was a huge effort to port all the classes (the > bigger the testsuite, the more changes).
Not all kind of tests would suffer from this. Core functionality should not be dependent on GUI stuff, right ? And GUI tests should be on a level of abstraction that doesn't mess with widget library details. > - The API of QGIS might indeed change. E.g. say Martin implements a new > redesigned symbology engine -> he needs to adapt all the symbology related > test (the more the better?) If it's _new_ functionality you're talking about it would come with _new_ tests and the old you could just drop. > - The 'no change without unit test' policy means also test for internal > classes (not in the public API) I don't have enough knowledge of the qgis API levels to have a say about this. Surely the policy should be more specific about at which level tests for different components should be provided. --strk; () Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer /\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
