Hi, On 23 March 2014 17:55, <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is complex enough that I can't say off the top of my head it's >> exactingly correct. Probably the best thing to do would be to get a >> similar patch with testcases into xkbcommon, so we can verify that it >> works, and also doesn't break other functionality. > > Unfortunately, I do not know enough about xkbcommon to do that. I am > not even sure it is supported on NetBSD, which is my work environment.
It should be. Some of the tests rely on <linux/input.h> to get KEY_* definitions, but you could just copy that and it'll work fine. The only test which will break would be interactive.c. > Does xkbcommon allow non-interactive testing? For my purposes, I put > ISOLock with various 'affect' settings on a function key and then tried > the various interactions with modifier, group, control, and button > actions. But admittedly this is tedious and error-prone. Right. We've got a fairly comprehensive test suite covering the full keyboard mechanics, that covers a lot of dark corners you don't usually see in manual testing. That's why I'd like to see it there: so we can write tests ensuring it works, but also to ensure it doesn't break any other expectations. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
