Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 01/05/13 23:33, David Ostrovsky wrote: > On 30.04.2013 23:46, Stephan Bergmann wrote: >> On 04/29/2013 11:42 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote: >>> cli_ure is failing to compile here atm. >> >> How's it failing for you exactly? I'd hope it does work now, across >> various Windows build configurations.

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 30.04.2013 23:46, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 04/29/2013 11:42 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote: cli_ure is failing to compile here atm. How's it failing for you exactly? I'd hope it does work now, across various Windows build configurations. yes, after you've fixed it ;-) so, with this patch

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 04/29/2013 11:42 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote: cli_ure is failing to compile here atm. How's it failing for you exactly? I'd hope it does work now, across various Windows build configurations. Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@list

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 29.04.2013 09:41, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Is it really working on all platforms, incl. Windows? If yes, why is sw/Module_sw.mk still ifneq ($(DISABLE_PYTHON),TRUE) ifneq ($(OS),WNT) $(eval $(call gb_Module_add_subsequentcheck_targets,sw,\ PythonTest_sw_python \ )) endif endif good cat

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 04/27/2013 12:40 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote: so I migrated the fdo#55814 java unit test to python: sw/qa/complex/writer/VarFields.java sw/qa/python/var_fields.py "comment out storeToURL() as it

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 04/27/2013 12:40 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote: Python test machinery (in process) is up and running on system and internal python and on all platforms. Many thanks to Michael S. and Stephan for helping out with this! Is it really working on all platforms, incl. Windows? If yes, why is sw/Modu

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Hi, On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 10:58 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi David, > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:42:27AM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote: > > I wonder if it would make sense to establish > > Python_test machinery in our build system to be able to write such and > > many other tests in python in

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Markus Mohrhard wrote: > Also I'm not the biggest fan of the argumentation that it allows more > people to write unit tests. > There were at least two people at the Impress Sprint willing to write tests, but only able to do so in Python. I think this project has the general policy of welcoming any

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 10:57:59AM +0200, Markus Mohrhard wrote: > 2013/4/4 David Ostrovsky > > I am not going to provide the huge advantages of dynamic type languages > > in general here, but while python is very impressive it *is* truly > > read-write language compare to number of write-only lan

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Hi, On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote: > On 2013-04-04 10:53, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > >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+

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On 2013-04-04 10:53, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: 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++. If this leads to more reliable tests of any kind, which will turn into

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

2013/4/4 David Ostrovsky > [Moving this discussion to ML to have better visibility] > > with https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/3128/ we have support for unit > tests written in python. (We have even found two bugs with it > already ... and fixed). > > I am not going to provide the huge advantage

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

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 tes

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

David Ostrovsky wrote: > with https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/3128/ we have support for unit > tests written in python. (We have even found two bugs with it > already ... and fixed). > I like it, because it probably increases the number of people able to write unit tests. I dislike it, since as

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

I'm extremely grateful to anyone willing to work on improving our unit test infrastructure. However... On 2013-04-04 10:24, David Ostrovsky wrote: I am not going to provide the huge advantages of dynamic type languages in general here, but while python is very impressive it *is* truly read-w

Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

> while python is very impressive it *is* truly > read-write language compare to number of write-only languages, Could we please stop this childish language bigotry? --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freed

yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

[Moving this discussion to ML to have better visibility] with https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/3128/ we have support for unit tests written in python. (We have even found two bugs with it already ... and fixed). I am not going to provide the huge advantages of dynamic type languages in general

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Hi David, On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:42:27AM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote: > And yes i am going to migrate it to C++ as you argued that it would be > easier to debug then java. I wonder if it would make sense to establish > Python_test machinery in our build system to be able to write such and >

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Hi Miklos, On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 11:18 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi David, > > On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 02:29:54PM +0100, David Ostrovsky > wrote: > > I wonder why we don't have any unit test for that part of code? > > We do have one: > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Hi David, On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 02:29:54PM +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote: > I wonder why we don't have any unit test for that part of code? We do have one: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=10e02dfdffb5ef3a02a40b52c6cda176f7f4447c It's just not testing the case we have

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 13:28 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > No-one wrote it yet ? :-) it's hardish to implemnt writer unit-tests > even now ? ( at least my attempt at auto-testing the red-lining also ran > into the ground inconclusively before I could write code to test the > specific issue tha

Re: fdo#55814: unit test is missing

On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 14:29 +0100, David Ostrovsky wrote: > i've been told yesterday that the usage of writer is severly restricted. > All versions since 3.5 are affected. There is a bug for it: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55814 Nasty. > I wonder why we don't have any

fdo#55814: unit test is missing

Hi, i've been told yesterday that the usage of writer is severly restricted. All versions since 3.5 are affected. There is a bug for it: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55814 I wonder why we don't have any unit test for that part of code? Another question is bug prioritization. Tha