> On Jan. 3, 2013, 6:55 p.m., Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp, lines 2124-2136 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/7/?file=104083#file104083line2124> > > > > What is the purpose of all the QVERIFY-s here? (Same in the next test)
The purpose is - to my understanding - that only expected actions of the object instance make the test pass successfully. I copied these more or less from other tests and I have no idea whether it would be safe enough to do without them here... (I guess I need to add Alvaro, Thomas and Cristian as reviewers here too.) > On Jan. 3, 2013, 6:55 p.m., Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp, lines 2113-2118 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/7/?file=104083#file104083line2113> > > > > In my opinion it's safe to assume that addSplit() won't throw, so I > > would skip the try-catch block here, as it makes the test a bit less > > readable. But it's also ok the way it is. (Same in the next test Well, perhaps you are right, since similar tests occur earlier up in the test sequence. > On Jan. 3, 2013, 6:55 p.m., Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp, line 2106 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/7/?file=104083#file104083line2106> > > > > Does this impact the test at all? E.g. would it matter if you changed > > "Memotext" to something else or removed the line? (Applies to the next test > > as well) We can do without it, I think. It's just a residue. > On Jan. 3, 2013, 6:55 p.m., Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp, lines 2084-2085 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/7/?file=104083#file104083line2084> > > > > Extracting a hardcoded value (2011,12,1) to a variable (tDate) is a > > good idea - it improves readability, and the same object can be used many > > times if necessary. > > > > Now think of a better variable name so that the comment will no longer > > be needed (same applies to remaining two tests). Good point. I'll do something about it. (The two issues at the bottom I won't touch until I get feedback from the other devs.) - Marko ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/#review24595 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 2, 2013, 10:49 p.m., Marko Käning wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 2, 2013, 10:49 p.m.) > > > Review request for KMymoney and Łukasz Maszczyński. > > > Description > ------- > > The homepage accounts tables now show a different icon if there are > transactions for an account after the last online transaction - highlighting > for the user the necessity to download transactions in order to verify the > account status. > > > Diffs > ----- > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfile.h c43977ce7413eee2bc1e0a841fa548314c71e9df > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfile.cpp 6640356d5e07152f8eb4aecff23d62ee8d853dbd > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.h 5551fa94b6b34022c8e91c0301847d5479e6b1f2 > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp > feb9d57ecd7156fc1eea189a905fa797aeae9183 > kmymoney/views/khomeview.cpp c79337176b7265cabe15cad4972bc719e797af7c > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Built and ran application and test cases successfully. > > > Screenshots > ----------- > > example for the 4 possible cases of online status > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/s/948/ > > > Thanks, > > Marko Käning > >
_______________________________________________ KMyMoney-devel mailing list KMyMoney-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
