If there is no living upstream, surely we shouldn't let the current state of affairs hold us back? Why not add the features we need, and remove --with-system-cppunit?
I see unit-testing as a project-internal thing anyhow, and it's a build-time dependency, not a run-time dependency, so I don't see --with-system-cppunit as being that important. But I could be wrong? I'd just hate to see our unit-testing efforts held back by the lack of an upstream.... Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 12/09/2011 12:55 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: >> At 4:47pm -0500 Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Michael Meeks wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 13:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote: >>>> More specifically, I wish there were a way to run exactly and only >>>> one test (i.e. a single ::testFunction()). >>> >>> Fine, sounds like a worthy goal. I suggest you hack cppunit to add >>> some magic macro wrappers to stringify the function name, and allow >>> some run-time parameter that will filter the tests immediately on >>> entry down to the one you want. >> >> Oh! I didn't realize cppunit was open for hacking from our end. Let's > > Not really. Keep in mind that LO's configure has --with-system-cppunit, > which people do make use of. The existing > patches fix bugs or warnings, and should have been upstreamed if there were a > living upstream. They do not introduce > features. > > That said, AFAIU, xUnit in general and CppUnit in particular does support the > notion of finer-grained test suites, > allowing one to execute only a subset of a given set of tests. Never looked > into how that works, though. > > Stephan > _______________________________________________ > LibreOffice mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
