On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 15:34 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > When coding dbus I thought I'd try a project with a focus on unit tests.
> > It has (or at least had for a while) exceptionally high test coverage,
> > around 75% of basic blocks ex
Tim Janik wrote:
>
> ah, interesting. could you please explain why you consider it
> such a big win?
>
Without it I think I usually write about 10% coverage, and imagine in my
mind that it is 50% or so ;-) I'm guessing this is pretty common.
With it, it was easy to just browse and say "OK, thi
hy Yevgen;
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 15:34 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> >>What's the purpose of this?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >These vfuncs have been moved too to the GtkDocumentModel interface,
> >inside a more complex GtkDocumentInfo boxed type. The rationale between
> >setting and getting the docume
On Mon, October 30, 2006 9:34 am, Tim Janik wrote:
>> - based on how nautilus does unit tests, I put the tests in the file
>>with the code being tested. The rationale is similar to the
>>rationale for inline documentation. I think it's a good approach,
>>but it does require a distinct
Hello all:
I want fix the bugs:
//
A-Ref1:
Bug 360337 Compilation error with GTK-DFB (gtk+-
2.10.6)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Priority: Normal
Severity: critical
A-Ref1:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360337
/*
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When coding dbus I thought I'd try a project with a focus on unit tests.
> It has (or at least had for a while) exceptionally high test coverage,
> around 75% of basic blocks executed in make check. The coverage-analyzer
> has been busted for
