On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 23:16 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:20:28PM -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oh, I have no opposition against writing C++ tests. When have the
> infrastructure for that in the build system and it certainly has advantages
> once the test is there. However, as Michael pointed out a dynamic language has
> clearly some advantages too when aiming for getting the test up quickly.
Personally I don't care what language the test is written in ;-) but I
do have these requirements for the ideal unit test:
* easy to debug
+ is a single process
+ gives a complete stack-trace of unit test + core code
+ allows interactive inspection of variables & call
frames up and down that stack
* runs quickly - in a handful of seconds
* 100% reliable (in the absence of a real bug)
How we achieve that is of course up to us. To me, as of today, all of
the above says C++; perhaps gdb will show us nice python stacktraces
instead of random python internals in the near future, and allow
inspection of variables: if so, I'm well up for it - assuming we have a
cppunit framework that bootstraps it inside the same process (not that
hard I think).
HTH,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
