On 12/09/2011 03:26 PM, Noel Grandin wrote:
If there is no living upstream, surely we shouldn't let the current
state of affairs hold us back?
Why not add the features we need, and remove --with-system-cppunit?
My hope would be that CppUnit already caters for our needs. But sure,
if not, exte
If there is no living upstream, surely we shouldn't let the current state of
affairs hold us back?
Why not add the features we need, and remove --with-system-cppunit?
I see unit-testing as a project-internal thing anyhow, and it's a build-time
dependency, not a run-time dependency, so I
don't se
At 8:05am -0500 Fri, 09 Dec 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 12/09/2011 12:55 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
Oh! I didn't realize cppunit was open for hacking from our end.
Not really. Keep in mind that LO's configure has
--with-system-cppunit, which people do make use of. The existing
patches fix b
On 12/09/2011 12:55 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 4:47pm -0500 Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 13:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
More specifically, I wish there were a way to run exactly and only
one test (i.e. a single ::testFunction()).
Fine, sounds like a worthy go
At 7:03am -0500 Fri, 09 Dec 2011, Noel Grandin wrote:
I don't have any unit tests in my tree yet, so feel free to go
ahead.
Ah, what I'm going to be working on is the implementation of Cppunit for
us such that we can have some niceties that would have helped me
tremendously while getting up t
I don't have any unit tests in my tree yet, so feel free to go ahead.
-- Noel Grandin
Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 4:47pm -0500 Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 13:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
>>> More specifically, I wish there were a way to run exactly and only
>>> o
At 4:47pm -0500 Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 13:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
More specifically, I wish there were a way to run exactly and only
one test (i.e. a single ::testFunction()).
Fine, sounds like a worthy goal. I suggest you hack cppunit to add
some ma
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 13:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> > Ah - you just want to run a smaller set of tests, and faster than
> > running all of the 'make unittest' changes in master ?
>
> Sorry for the late response ... in short, exactly. More specifically, I
> wish there were a way to run exac
At 6:25am -0500 Thu, 24 Nov 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 01:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
I wanted to create an ScDocument to work with in a new test file. I
was thinking in terms of test driven development and having some
tests such that I could execute only them, as somethi
On 11/24/2011 12:25 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
I would suggest two things:
a) we can add an environment variable and check for it in
gnumake such that only one set of tests is run:
make TEST_SUBSET=filters-test unitcheck
or somesuch.
b) we coul
Hi Kevin,
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 01:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> I wanted to create an ScDocument to work with in a new test file. I was
> thinking in terms of test driven development and having some tests such
> that I could execute only them, as something akin to:
>
> $ make just_this_set
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 16:59 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> I'm trying to get hold of an ScDocument "from scratch". I have naively
> attempted to replicate another section of code, but for the life of me
> can't figure out what I'm missing. My code crashes with a SIGSEGV on
> thi
At 8:45pm -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:33 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 7:56pm -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
Can you explain in a bit more detail what you want to do. You
can't just create a new ScDocShell, you always need to do some
ini
2011/11/24 Kevin Hunter :
> At 7:56pm -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
>>
>> Can you explain in a bit more detail what you want to do. You can't
>> just create a new ScDocShell, you always need to do some
>> initialisation before. Depending on what you want to do you should
>> not nee
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:33 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 7:56pm -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> > Can you explain in a bit more detail what you want to do. You can't
> > just create a new ScDocShell, you always need to do some
> > initialisation before. Depending on what you wan
At 7:56pm -0500 Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
Can you explain in a bit more detail what you want to do. You can't
just create a new ScDocShell, you always need to do some
initialisation before. Depending on what you want to do you should
not need to create the ScDocShell yourself.
We
Hello Kevin,
2011/11/23 Kevin Hunter :
> Hello List,
>
> I'm trying to get hold of an ScDocument "from scratch". I have naively
> attempted to replicate another section of code, but for the life of me can't
> figure out what I'm missing. My code crashes with a SIGSEGV on this line:
>
> aDocShell
Hello List,
I'm trying to get hold of an ScDocument "from scratch". I have naively
attempted to replicate another section of code, but for the life of me
can't figure out what I'm missing. My code crashes with a SIGSEGV on
this line:
aDocShell = new ScDocShell();
I think I've boiled it do
18 matches
Mail list logo
