There's a patch for QtScript that has gone unreviewed for close to 2 months
now.
Can someone make a yay or nay decision on it?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel System Software Products
___
Development
On 05/04/2019 10.49, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> IMNSHO, I think Qt would do well to take a close and careful look at
> Google Test, which IMO has a much better design, at least as far as how
> test assertions are handled.
>
> In particular, I miss having a distinction between fatal and non-fatal
> a
On 02/04/2019 11.14, Mitch Curtis wrote:
> As described in https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-66320,
> currently Qt users are on their own if they want to call helper
> functions that can fail a test. The reason is documented:
>
> Note: This macro can only be used in a test function that is in
On 2/4/19 11:14 pm, Laszlo Agocs wrote:
As discussed at https://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2018_Graphics_Vision_2020 Qt 6
will do away with the hard OpenGL dependency in most, if not all, of its
modules. This is achieved via a small abstraction layer, currently
called the Qt Rendering Hardware Interface,
Il 05/04/19 10:29, Mitch Curtis ha scritto:
To take the obvious one first: anyone using their own custom macros in helpers
shouldn't be affected (that's me, currently).
But which custom macros, exactly? If your macros expand to private APIs
usage, we can break that anytime we want.
Anyone
> -Original Message-
> From: Giuseppe D'Angelo
> Sent: Friday, 5 April 2019 12:39 AM
> To: Mitch Curtis ; development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Supporting helper functions in auto tests by
> providing throwing Qt Test macros
>
> Il 03/04/19 13:58, Mitch Curtis ha scrit
