On 9 November 2014 00:30, Matthias Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote: > > (1) We could accept these deviations with anomalies or multiple > reference images. > > (2) Or we could remove the C++ test in favor of the python test which > will test the same functionality/codepath and the python binding in > addition. That would have the advantage that maintainability will be > easier, because not every of these tests needs to be written and > adjusted twice. The only disatvantage I can see is that you then don't > know if it's the python binding or the logic behind it that made a test > fail. But that shouldn't make a big difference in the time one needs to > debug a test.
My reservation with switching solely to the python tests is that it makes debugging a lot more difficult. With c++ tests it's easy to run a test from a debug session in qt creator to help track down a bug. The workflow for python tests is a lot more difficult... (or is there a way I'm missing of running these tests through qt creator too?). For this reason, I'd vote for c++ tests for most methods and python tests only when anything fancy is done is the sip bindings (transfer of ownership, etc). Nyall _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
