On 04/11/2015 14:30, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
However, I would also count as advantage, if there is someone familiar with
the framework and willing to do the setup and lend a helping hand to others.
(Maybe, the toolkit with the most developers willing to work on should win.)
We have discus
On 03/11/2015 14:28, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 02/11/2015 21:36, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
Dear all,
I have prepared a unit test framework based on google-test (gtest). You
can see the commits at
http://git.lyx.org/?p=developers/vfr/lyx.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/tests.
It inclu
> If there is no known advantage of gtest, I suggest using one of
> boost::test or QTest, as these come from sources we already rely on.
>
The major advantage of "gtest" is that I only have to type "git push"
and we have the
framework up and running.
A downside of boost::test is, according someon
On 2015-11-03, Georg Baum wrote:
> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
>> wrote:
> Regarding the test framework there is also boost::test (which would fit our
> needs as well). Unfortunately I have neither experience with gtest nor with
> QTest,
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> What is the difference with the tests we current use (I mean the "make
>> check" sort). The same but with better interface?
The overhead to add a test with the current setup is f
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 02/11/2015 21:36, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have prepared a unit test framework based on google-test (gtest). You
>> can see the commits at
>>
>> http://git.lyx.org/?p=developers/vfr/lyx.git;a=shortlog;
Le 02/11/2015 21:36, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
Dear all,
I have prepared a unit test framework based on google-test (gtest). You
can see the commits at
http://git.lyx.org/?p=developers/vfr/lyx.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/tests.
It includes gtest-1.7.0 (permitted by the license).
Hi Vinc
>> Any comments ? Shall I proceed to push this to master ?
>>
>> Vincent
>>
>
> Having a unit test framework integrated is a very good idea!
>
> Why have you chosen gtest and not QTest? Does gtest has interesting
> features which QTest does not have?
I'm not very experienced with unit testing, so
Am 02.11.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
Dear all,
I have prepared a unit test framework based on google-test (gtest). You can see
the commits at
http://git.lyx.org/?p=developers/vfr/lyx.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/tests. It
includes gtest-1.7.0 (permitted by the
license).
Unit
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Elmar Hinz wrote:
> To get started, I would need to do some more simple cases first.
Hi Elmar,
Did you make any progress on this? I know little about unit tests so I
won't be able to help much here, but I'm interested in any progress
you feel like sharing.
Scott
Hello Cyrille,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Cyrille Artho wrote:
> Hi Elmar,
> I think your plan covers the question "HOW do we want to unit test the
> software" well. However, we have not thought much about the "WHAT do we
> want to test?" question. Essentially, we need to think about which
Hi Elmar,
I think your plan covers the question "HOW do we want to unit test the
software" well. However, we have not thought much about the "WHAT do we
want to test?" question. Essentially, we need to think about which
classes/functions to test first.
I think it is not realistic to aim for a
> Ideally, one would not need to care about private variables because we
are only interested in that the public interface does what it is supposed
to do. Right ?
Yes, at least as far as it concerns the testing.
Denpendency Injection has other aspects.
As an example, if there is a class that prin
> I would like to see some examples of mocking and injection.
>
>
Thank you, Vincent,
> I tried to write some tests using the google framework, and started with
> the Buffer class. This immediately gives you the problem that it is
> dependent on a large number of other classes. So, this would me
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Elmar Hinz wrote:
> > If somebody can give improvements to the plan, it's welcome.
>
> I guess people will let you do almost anything what you like in test/*
> but they will become much more picky when it comes to changes in src/.
> Perhaps the
Op 7-5-2013 10:57, Elmar Hinz schreef:
Hello list,
I'd like to come up with a small plan for getting started with unit
testing:
I would like to see some examples of mocking and injection.
I tried to write some tests using the google framework, and started with
the Buffer class. This immedi
Elmar Hinz wrote:
> If somebody can give improvements to the plan, it's welcome.
I guess people will let you do almost anything what you like in test/*
but they will become much more picky when it comes to changes in src/.
Perhaps the best way is to try example, post patch here and
and look what p
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 04:57 AM, Elmar Hinz wrote:
>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I'd like to come up with a small plan for getting started with unit
>> testing:
>>
>
> I am a total ignoramus when it comes to unit testing, so I will leave it
> to others
> who
On 05/07/2013 04:57 AM, Elmar Hinz wrote:
Hello list,
I'd like to come up with a small plan for getting started with unit
testing:
I am a total ignoramus when it comes to unit testing, so I will leave it
to others
who actually know something to express a view.
Richard
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Okay so we have a situation where different implementations of std::string
| may return different sizes.
The ones that don't allow '\0' chars is bogus. The ones that only
count until the first '\0' is met is bogus.
| I haven't got an STL reference handy
On 10 Oct 1999, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | the new strand yet but I already have some doubts about the recent removal
> | of one of those tests.
>
> That test was completely bogus, since it demanded that a std::string
> cannont contain '\0', so the
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| the new strand yet but I already have some doubts about the recent removal
| of one of those tests.
That test was completely bogus, since it demanded that a std::string
cannont contain '\0', so the test had to go.
Lgb
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, John Weiss wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 07:19:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | Unit-testing is certainly a good thing -- tests all those promises the
> > | code makes and keeps Arndt happy about programming by cont
Well, it seems that everyone thinks unit testing is a nice thing, but
nobody has the time to do it.
--
John Weiss
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 05:25:36PM +0100, Arnd Hanses wrote:
>
> Else we would found the 'HardCore testing LyX never come to terms
> gang', making Core Developers live impossible.
>
> Then the real testing experts can by and by implement the rest on their
> own account and risk and report the re
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 08:47:31PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Instead, it's much better to simply address each file in order,
> document the header file, rename functions and variables to have
> better names, in general clean it up, and try to make things better
> small piece by pi
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 08:47:31PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Instead, it's much better to simply address each file in order,
> document the header file, rename functions and variables to have
> better names, in general clean it up, and try to make things better
> small piece by pi
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 07:19:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Unit-testing is certainly a good thing -- tests all those promises the
> | code makes and keeps Arndt happy about programming by contract since the
> | interface can't change without
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 03:47:30PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, John Weiss wrote:
>
> > [I've been meaning to mention this for some time now. But I've been
> > eaten alive by my house, and have been spending my train rides lately
> > hacking together new emacs programming modes.
> Unit-testing and independant modules is easy...unfortunately most of
> the modules in LyX depends on a multitude of other mudules makeing
> unit-testing very cumbersome and a lot of additional work.
>
> modules in the support dir could easily benefit form unit
> testing...but it is a lot of wor
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Unit-testing is certainly a good thing -- tests all those promises the
| code makes and keeps Arndt happy about programming by contract since the
| interface can't change without everybody finding out.
Unit-testing and independant modules is easy...unfortu
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:47:30 +1000 (GMT+1000), Allan Rae wrote:
>
>Unit-testing is certainly a good thing -- tests all those promises the
>code makes and keeps Arndt happy about programming by contract since the
>interface can't change without everybody finding out.
I've learned my suggestions ar
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, John Weiss wrote:
> [I've been meaning to mention this for some time now. But I've been
> eaten alive by my house, and have been spending my train rides lately
> hacking together new emacs programming modes.]
So your house is haunted? What possible emacs programming modes
33 matches
Mail list logo
