On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:30 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > Op zondag 4 december 2011 19:08:10 schreef John Ralls: >> Author: jralls >> Date: 2011-12-04 19:08:10 -0500 (Sun, 04 Dec 2011) >> New Revision: 21677 >> Trac: http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/changeset/21677 >> >> Modified: >> gnucash/trunk/src/gnc-module/test/misc-mods/Makefile.am >> gnucash/trunk/src/gnc-module/test/test-agedver.c >> gnucash/trunk/src/gnc-module/test/test-dynload.c >> gnucash/trunk/src/gnc-module/test/test-incompatdep.c >> gnucash/trunk/src/gnc-module/test/test-load-c.c >> gnucash/trunk/src/gnc-module/test/test-modsysver.c >> Log: >> [Testing] Gnc-module: Provide checked error messages to replace noted >> warnings (c-files only) >> >> >> Much better for expected warnings to be tested for than to have a lead-in >> message saying that they're really OK. >> >> Don't have the test utilities in Scheme yet. >> >> Set the phony modules in misc-modules to be libtool modules instead of >> shared libraries. Aside from being more correct, this ensures that they'll >> have the same name on Linux and OSX. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnucash-patches mailing list >> gnucash-patc...@gnucash.org >> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-patches > > When I started my fixes on the tests (which you have nicely completed), I > considered backporting the changes to the 2.4 branch. I did port most of my > changes like that. > > Would it make sense to backport your test fixes and if so, before 2.4.9 is > released this weekend ? >
I'm not done yet. There are still messages that need to be suppressed. I don't see any real benefit to backporting it. It wouldn't do any harm, but it's not user-facing and it's not likely to have any affect on quality in 2.4. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
