On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:13 +0100, Markus Mohrhard wrote: > >> hmmm.... i wonder if it would make sense to have UNO API tests written > >> in Python: that should be much easier on the eyes than boilerplate-heavy > >> C++/Java... and i think there is a need for tests at the UNO API level > >> no matter how many core C++ level tests we have, because there is really > >> no other way to find regressions in that area (nobody tests that > >> manually), might as well try to maximize the productivity... > > > > In general, I agree: Python is the best tool we likely have for this job. > > OTOH > > it is bound to the UNO API and I wonder if they can be written in a way that > > they do not all die with: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice4 . > > > > Personally I would prefer c++ based uno tests. I know that writing > python code is faster but then we will be again at a point where we > have a language binding between our test code and our tested code. > IMHO tests should be written so that debugging them is as easy as > possible even if it means that writing them might need a bit more > time, but I might be wrong and python based tests are even more easy > to debug.
Let me cast my vote for the use of C++ too. Markus has already outlined the benefit of using C++ for debugging point of view. I will also point out that using python here may alienate some of us who are not a big fan of the language. I can at least think of one particular person who is very allergic to python (and he has a big presence among us). :-) I personally do love and use python in some of our projects, but I would stick with C++ for this specific use case as Markus pointed out. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
