On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:37:51AM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote: > >Yes, it is probably true that you can not easily debug these unit tests. > >But is the debuggability the only argument here? I doubt it. We have > Yes it very much is. I'm currently struggling with visibility into a > failing unit test, and the dual Java/C++ nature of the unit test > makes it incredibly hard for me to find the source of the problem.
Well, IMHO the main problem with the unoapi tests wrt this is that they 'centralized' a lot of the expectations on the UNO-Api -- which made them hard to quickly rewrite in C++. THe complex tests should not have this issue. Other than that, IMHO this is mostly a false dilemma -- not everyone who might write Python tests would write C++ tests. If this leads to more reliable tests of any kind, which will turn into tests of the C++ kind when they first fail, Im all for it. A side issue: As I wrote in: http://skyfromme.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/autopkgtests-for-adults/ I enabled running the (Java) tests against a version installed into the system -- which is better than testing against a version not into the system, so I would love to keep that ability when we get more C++ tests (for Python tests I assume that to be trivial). @moggi: As I havent looked into that yet -- would you see any blockers there? Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
