On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 16:00:57 -0700, Benjamin Sergeant wrote: > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> wrote: > > I've been thinking about some refactoring of QGit since some time. And to be > > sure I don't screw up things too hard in the process, I thought about adding > > a test suite infrastructure first (and add some test cases for each think > > just before refactoring it). > > > > The problem is, that implementing unittests means I need to compile > > 2 separate binaries -- qgit itself and the test -- using most (but not all) > > of the same sources. I see two ways to do it, so I'd like to ask which you > > consider cleaner: > > [...] > > Maybe you can have a look at QTestLib. But it won't solve your Sure I did. Unfortunately they don't suggest any good way to handle your build process with it in their examples. Seems to me they never tried testing an application with it. I plan to go down the QTestLib route. Maybe it could be combined with LDTP[1] for blackbox testing -- they claim to be able to use Qt 4's accessibility to control an application. > buildsystem issues. You'll need one .pro per test. (I have one .pro > per test plus one directory per test). There's probably other ways to > using it. Depends on what you call a test. But generally there should be no reason to have more than one .pro file for all tests. You just need to manually maintain a list of test classes or create some kind of static instance self-registration (which I did). > http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/qtestlib-manual.html#qtestlib [1] http://ldtp.freedesktop.org/ -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
