On Monday 07 March 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Monday 07 March 2011 06:40:15 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > _If_ we want to be able to release master as a reasonably stable snapshot,
> > we really have to be better about our unittests. Even if the unittests
> > test something that is bein
On Monday 07 March 2011, Arjen Hiemstra wrote:
> On Monday 07 March 2011 06:40:15 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > 183 - libs-widgets-zoomhandler_test (Failed)
> >
> > Arjen: you were going to fix this test -- please do that today!
> >
>
> Yeah, I fixed it today though I'm not entirely happy w
On Monday 07 March 2011 06:40:15 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> 183 - libs-widgets-zoomhandler_test (Failed)
>
> Arjen: you were going to fix this test -- please do that today!
>
Yeah, I fixed it today though I'm not entirely happy with the solution. There
is a zoomcontroller_test where I wan
On Monday 07 March 2011 06:40:15 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> _If_ we want to be able to release master as a reasonably stable snapshot,
> we really have to be better about our unittests. Even if the unittests
> test something that is being refactored anyway in a branch, we should
> _NOT_ brea
And lets not forget:
libs-komain-TestActionTest
Random failures, had been happening for as long as this test has
existed.
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
___
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calli
On Monday 07 March 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> I'm not sure how I can figure out who committed the changes that broke the
> test -- Cyrille, do you know how I can figure that out?
The problem is that most of those failures happened while the buildbot
configuration was not stable.
And some of t
Hi,
_If_ we want to be able to release master as a reasonably stable snapshot, we
really have to be better about our unittests. Even if the unittests test
something that is being refactored anyway in a branch, we should _NOT_ break
those tests.
Currently we have the following failures:
