Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:32:03PM -0800, Eric Rahm wrote: > Would that be a fourth copy in the tree at this point? Why would that require another copy? Mike ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread David Major
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016, at 06:17 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > > > > CppUnitTests are fine to keep. > > > > > > Having said that, IMO it is desirable to convert CppUni

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Eric Rahm
Would that be a fourth copy in the tree at this point? -e On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > > > > CppUnitTests are fine to keep. > > > > >

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Mike Hommey
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > CppUnitTests are fine to keep. > > > Having said that, IMO it is desirable to convert CppUnitTests to gtests > where possible. Every CppUnitTest has to provide s

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > CppUnitTests are fine to keep. Having said that, IMO it is desirable to convert CppUnitTests to gtests where possible. Every CppUnitTest has to provide some basic check/pass/fail infrastructure, and many of them provide their own. Convert

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:47:44PM -0500, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > Please do not add any new CppUnitTests. With the pending removal of the > XPCOM glue, CppUnitTests will fail to build and are no longer an option. We > are currently porting current CppUnitTests to gtests, and if you are > tempted

Re: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Aaron Klotz
What about CppUnitTests that only pull in stuff from headers and don't emit references to xul symbols? Will we still be able to create those, or is all CppUnitTest build capability going away? On 11/9/2016 12:47 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: Please do not add any new CppUnitTests. With the pend

Please do not add any new CppUnitTests/GeckoCppUnitTests

2016-11-09 Thread Benjamin Smedberg
Please do not add any new CppUnitTests. With the pending removal of the XPCOM glue, CppUnitTests will fail to build and are no longer an option. We are currently porting current CppUnitTests to gtests, and if you are tempted to write a CppUnitTest, please write it as a gtest instead. --BDS ___