If you plan on adding more tests to GTest please build against patches in
bug 844288 which will hopefully land soon. Note that I have one outstanding
problem left on Windows where the linking only fails on TBPL jobs.
I personally have a strong preference for keeping tests, particularly unit
tests,
On Monday, 6 May 2013 01:38:39 UTC+10, Benoit Jacob wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Summary: MathML is a vestigial remnant of the XML-everything era, and we
>
> should drop it.
>
>
>
> ***
>
>
>
> 1. Reasons why I believe that MathML never was a good idea. Summary:
>
> over-specialized and uniform
On 5/8/13 12:10, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I think this is more a question for sheriffs and people closer to
automation. Generally, you need to be cognizant of timeouts enforced
by our automation infrastructure and the scorn people will give you
for running a test that isn't efficient. But if it is
On 5/8/2013 8:41 AM, Ethan Hugg wrote:
Hi All,
We currently have 10 C++ GTest unittests in Firefox in
media/mtransport/test and media/webrtc/signaling/test that build standalone
tests with the FF build. These tests currently run as part of the build
and make the B orange if they fail which is w
On Monday, 6 May 2013 22:19:31 UTC+10, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/6/13 7:27 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
>
> > I guess I don't see the usefulness of allowing to apply style to individual
>
> > parts of an equation
>
>
>
> Styling parts of an equation with different colors can be _extremely_
>
>
Hi All,
We currently have 10 C++ GTest unittests in Firefox in
media/mtransport/test and media/webrtc/signaling/test that build standalone
tests with the FF build. These tests currently run as part of the build
and make the B orange if they fail which is why a couple of them are still
stubbed at
Hi Sam!
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
Please read my answers inline...
On May 8, 2013, at 3:11 PM, sam foster wrote:
> I want to add my +1 to the goal of unifying and streamlining the setting up
> of test flows and a common assertion syntax.
>
Yay!
> I know some of the iss
Hi Joshua!
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
Please read my answers inline...
On May 8, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 8:49 AM, Mike de Boer wrote:
>> I've told some of you before that I'm not a big fan of Promise libraries (if
>> not, please read the 10 r
I want to add my +1 to the goal of unifying and streamlining the setting up of
test flows and a common assertion syntax.
I know some of the issues you raise with Promises (like getting a useful stack
on exceptions) are being discussed and addressed already. I dont have all the
context, but IST
Hi Mark!
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
I really don't have an aversion to using Promises at all!
I'm trying to point out that continuation passing style async programming and
Promises can co-exist. I love the way how Promises can be neatly combined with
Generators and the semant
10 matches
Mail list logo
