Re: [Libreoffice] unit-test / code sharing ...
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 11:47 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: I suspect we should do this for all unit-tests above tools, and the head-less smoketest too. But isn't it the way that all dialogs are implicitly cancelled in headless mode, anyway? Oh - quite possibly for headless mode - though they perhaps do it a different way, we just call InitVCL - prolly we could do better. For one thing I'm re-factoring some parts of the vcl's svp backend to make it more independent of X, if we can get all the way with that, we can make that work cross-platform which'd be nice. Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] unit-test / code sharing ...
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 09:46 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: Reading the various cppunit tests we have and the code cut/paste going on gives some concern. We need a place to share most of this really bootstrap UNO heavy lifting and the various other bits of common magic that go on there, presumably a CppUnit::TestFixture sub-class - where quite that belongs, I don't know - perhaps vcl would be a good place. Yeah, test would be fine probably. The intent was to merge the common code back together once the various filter tests in different modules flushed out the required flags and magic, but I didn't get around to it. C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] unit-test / code sharing ...
On 09/28/2011 11:27 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 09:46 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: Reading the various cppunit tests we have and the code cut/paste going on gives some concern. We need a place to share most of this really bootstrap UNO heavy lifting and the various other bits of common magic that go on there, presumably a CppUnit::TestFixture sub-class - where quite that belongs, I don't know - perhaps vcl would be a good place. Yeah, test would be fine probably. The intent was to merge the common code back together once the various filter tests in different modules flushed out the required flags and magic, but I didn't get around to it. Yes, test was intended for such stuff -- but we need to make sure not to introduce circular dependencies. (The conceptual level of that module is still somewhat undecided.) -Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] unit-test / code sharing ...
On 09/28/2011 10:46 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Incidentally, while trying to get some StarBasic / VBA unit tests
working with Moggi, it seemed that some of our hangs were down to
dialogs showing up that were simply not visible, and spinning the
mainloop waiting for a response.
static void aBasicErrorFunc( const StringrErr, const StringrAction )
{
rtl::OStringBuffer aErr( Unexpected dialog: );
aErr.append( rtl::OUStringToOString( rAction, RTL_TEXTENCODING_ASCII_US )
);
aErr.append( Error: );
aErr.append( rtl::OUStringToOString( rErr, RTL_TEXTENCODING_ASCII_US ) );
CPPUNIT_ASSERT_MESSAGE( aErr.getStr(), false);
}
void FiltersTest::setUp()
{
ErrorHandler::RegisterDisplay( aBasicErrorFunc );
}
Solves that rather pleasantly, with the added bonus that it might help
improve the accuracy / helpfulness our basic error reporting over time.
I suspect we should do this for all unit-tests above tools, and the
head-less smoketest too.
But isn't it the way that all dialogs are implicitly cancelled in
headless mode, anyway?
-Stephan
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] unit-test / code sharing ...
Hello Stephan,
2011/9/28 Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com
On 09/28/2011 10:46 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Incidentally, while trying to get some StarBasic / VBA unit tests
working with Moggi, it seemed that some of our hangs were down to
dialogs showing up that were simply not visible, and spinning the
mainloop waiting for a response.
static void aBasicErrorFunc( const StringrErr, const StringrAction )
{
rtl::OStringBuffer aErr( Unexpected dialog: );
aErr.append( rtl::OUStringToOString( rAction,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_ASCII_US ) );
aErr.append( Error: );
aErr.append( rtl::OUStringToOString( rErr, RTL_TEXTENCODING_ASCII_US )
);
CPPUNIT_ASSERT_MESSAGE( aErr.getStr(), false);
}
void FiltersTest::setUp()
{
ErrorHandler::RegisterDisplay( aBasicErrorFunc );
}
Solves that rather pleasantly, with the added bonus that it might
help
improve the accuracy / helpfulness our basic error reporting over time.
I suspect we should do this for all unit-tests above tools, and the
head-less smoketest too.
But isn't it the way that all dialogs are implicitly cancelled in headless
mode, anyway?
The Basic Error Dialog seems to be the only dialog at the moment that still
tries to show up and results in a loop while waiting for user input.
Micheal's patch fixed that problem for me and makes it possible to try to
run basic code in unit tests.
Markus
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] unit-test / code sharing ...
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 11:44 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Yes, test was intended for such stuff -- but we need to make sure not to introduce circular dependencies. (The conceptual level of that module is still somewhat undecided.) fattest/uglytest, slimtest/goodtest if it arises maybe :-) C. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
