Thanks, Cristian. Your help is much appreciated. I will analyze the class QSignalSpy, but I expect your example to create more properly test cases.
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:18:23 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Kmymoney-devel] Improving the test suite for MyMoneyFile > From: onet.crist...@gmail.com > To: pedretti...@hotmail.com > CC: kmymoney-devel@kde.org > > To verify signal emission in a test case use QSignalSpy [1] (it's > pretty well documented). > > I'm on the run now but I'll follow up with a specific example and > ideas about the balance cache later. > > Regards, > Cristian > > [1] http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/QSignalSpy.html > > 2015-02-17 19:24 GMT+02:00 victor <pedretti...@hotmail.com>: > > Thanks for your answer Cristian. I understand what you mean, but I have no > > idea about how to check that those signals are emitted since I have never > > worked with this mechanism. Could you please show me a specific example? > > > > Your answer refers to m_valueChangedSet and m_balanceChangedSet. Any ideas > > about the faults involving "m_balanceCache"? > > > >> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:23:42 +0200 > >> Subject: Re: [Kmymoney-devel] Improving the test suite for MyMoneyFile > >> From: onet.crist...@gmail.com > >> To: pedretti...@hotmail.com > >> CC: kmymoney-devel@kde.org > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Since those two members are used to implement the emit of the > >> 'balanceChanged()' and 'valueChanged()' signals after committing > >> changes you could write a test case that asserts that those signals > >> are emitted properly. > >> > >> For example: > >> After adding a transaction 'balanceChanged()' should be emitted. > >> After adding a price 'valueChanged()' should be emitted. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Cristian > >> > >> 2015-02-17 16:13 GMT+02:00 victor <pedretti...@hotmail.com>: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I am trying to improve some of the test files of KMyMoney for my > >> > research > >> > studies. This is a really complex task when you are not involved in > >> > programming this application, so I need your help to achieve it. > >> > > >> > All the same, I'm only focusing on some specific parts. What I'm doing > >> > is to > >> > introduce several concrete faults into the code and then observe if the > >> > fault is detected by the test suite (this would be the expected of an > >> > adequate test suite, but we all now that this is quite difficult > >> > sometimes). > >> > In this sense, I have been doing this in "mymoneyfile.cpp" and testing > >> > it > >> > with its corresponding file test "mymoneyfiletest.cpp". The faults > >> > introduced are faults which are common when programming because we > >> > sometimes > >> > mix the name of variables of the same type, or do not call the > >> > appropriate > >> > method because of "copy and paste",... > >> > > >> > Here I show two of these faults that the test suite is not able to > >> > detect > >> > (the result is the same in the original program and with the inserted > >> > fault): > >> > > >> > 1) The first is in the method "void > >> > MyMoneyFile::commitTransaction(void)", > >> > where I change: > >> > > >> > d->m_balanceChangedSet.remove((*it).id()); > >> > > >> > by: > >> > > >> > d->m_valueChangedSet.remove((*it).id()); > >> > > >> > Exactly the same happens in the method "void > >> > MyMoneyFile::rollbackTransaction(void)" if, for instance, I change > >> > "d->m_valueChangedSet.clear();" by "d->m_balanceChangedSet.clear();". > >> > These > >> > changes seem to be meaningful changes, but they are not detected by the > >> > test > >> > suite at the moment. > >> > > >> > 2) The other situation that I want to report is in method "void > >> > notify(void)" belonging to "MyMoneyFile::Private". If I change, > >> > > >> > m_balanceCache.clear(i.first, i.second); > >> > > >> > by: > >> > > >> > m_balanceCache.clear(i.first); > >> > > >> > or: > >> > > >> > m_balanceCache.clear(); > >> > > >> > How could I detect that I are not calling the method "clear" in a > >> > correct > >> > way? > >> > > >> > I am aware that this is quite specific and may be difficult to create > >> > test > >> > cases for these situations, but I think that this is a very good chance > >> > to > >> > improve the test suite of MyMoneyFile (a very important module in the > >> > application). > >> > > >> > Does somebody know how to reveal the aforementioned faults modifying > >> > existing test cases or designing a new one? > >> > > >> > Thanks in advance. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > KMyMoney-devel mailing list > >> > KMyMoney-devel@kde.org > >> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel > >> >
_______________________________________________ KMyMoney-devel mailing list KMyMoney-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
