On Mo, 2012-01-30 at 09:03 +0100, Mikel Astiz wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> On 01/27/2012 07:00 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Fr, 2012-01-27 at 14:55 +0100, Mikel Astiz wrote:
> > [...]
> >> +static class VCard30Test : public RegisterSyncSourceTest {
> >> +public:
> >> + VCard30Test() : RegisterSyncSourceTest("file_contact", "eds_contact")
> >> {}
> > [...]
> >> + SuperTest() : RegisterSyncSourceTest("file_calendar+todo",
> >> "calendar+todo") {}
> > Better don't register the tests. The first parameter of
> > RegisterSyncSourceTest() would have to be unique (say, "pbap_contact"),
> > but even then the test would mostly just fail because the source is not
> > implementing write access.
>
> You're right. It seems I sent the patches too soon after all :-)
Not at all. It's better to discuss code early when the design and
perhaps coding style can still be influenced without causing a massive
rewrite.
Not that your code needs much of that :-)
--
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
