Il 18/09/2014 18:29, Michael Roth ha scritto:
> <snip>
>
>> > int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> > {
>> > g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>> > @@ -174,9 +200,20 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> > type_register_static(&static_prop_type);
>> > type_register_static(&dynamic_prop_type);
>> >
>> > - g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/default", test_static_prop);
>> > - g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/global",
>> > test_static_globalprop);
>> > - g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/dynamic/global",
>> > test_dynamic_globalprop);
>> > + g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/default/subprocess",
>> > + test_static_prop_subprocess);
>> > + g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/default",
>> > + test_static_prop);
> Since in the code above test_static_prop is actually the test that re-runs
> /qdev/properties/static/default/subprocess under g_test_trap_subprocess,
> aren't
> the tests (or test function implementations) backwards?
>
No, it's correct. The parent test is the parent function, the child
test is the subprocess function. The child test is automagically
skipped by GTest, I don't know how that works.
Paolo
