A couple of patches for the parser branch:
0001: Some cleanup.
0002: The randr simulation patch from the other message.
0003: Fix function depth handling and an uninitialised function argument.
(I.e. a crash)
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
From
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 02:14:57AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> For debugging I need to run another fvwm in xnest, but that
> doesn't support randr.
>
> The attached patch mocks up a global monitor to use if init fails.
> It works at the first glance, but the patch is not very clean.
> Please
For debugging I need to run another fvwm in xnest, but that
doesn't support randr.
The attached patch mocks up a global monitor to use if init fails.
It works at the first glance, but the patch is not very clean.
Please comment.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
From
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:31:46PM +, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:19:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Most of the tests were meant to catch parsing bugs, leaks and
> > crashes. A mor organised approach in the future would be good.
> > Maybe it would even be possible to
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:19:11PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Most of the tests were meant to catch parsing bugs, leaks and
> crashes. A mor organised approach in the future would be good.
> Maybe it would even be possible to generate test cases for
> commands programmatically from the BNF.
It
We need to put the results and suggestions of this discusstion in
a file.
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:31:09AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Anyway, we need
> > infrastructure for automated testing.
>
> We used to have something like that but it fell into bitrot and I removed it
> years ago.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:31:09AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I haven't found anything yet either. Anyway, we need
> infrastructure for automated testing. That shouldn't involve much
> more than a testing directory, a Makefile with a "test" target,
> and a couple of files that can be fed into
