On Di, 2011-07-26 at 10:48 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 16:58 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > At the least there can be a test that there is at least one backend. > > > > Also, maybe we can test for the expected backends based on the > > configure > > options? > > > > > A unit test might be able to check that some well-known backends > > (like > > > the file backend) is listed, but anything beyond that is difficult. > > It > > > would have caught this issue, though. > > > > Yes, I think it would be useful. > > This patch adds a "make check" test that just checks whether > SyncSource::backendsInfo() is an empty string. Obviously, we would want > to add more specific API than just backendsInfo() to check for specific > backends.
Tests in SyncEvolution should better be written using the existing CppUnit-based unit and integration testing. For a simple example, see util.cpp and SYNCEVOLUTION_TEST_SUITE_REGISTRATION(TimespecTest); SyncEvolution has some unit tests, but not that many. I find it more important to have good integration/interoperability testing. The problem with not registering the backends would have shown up there, if the tests had been run on a platform exhibiting the problem. So a simpler unit test would have been nice, but not essential. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
