> -Original Message-
> From: Development On Behalf Of
> Milian Wolff
> Sent: Friday, 14 October 2022 3:00 AM
> To: Development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Duplicated test data tags
>
[...]
> I have many times accidentally written bogus code that duplicated the tags.
> Get
Nice. I'm a bit surprised file_name() returns a char* rather than a
std::filesystem::path, but it'll do. It's also nice to see
source_location has a function_name() that can finally unify the
disparate ways of getting that information.
The advantages are for instance that file_name() does
On Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2022 15:50:06 CEST Edward Welbourne via Development
wrote:
> QTBUG-107185 revealed that QTest did not check for duplicated test data
> tags, i.e. parameters to newRow() / addRow(); when I looked at the
> implementation I found it also neglected to check for duplicated
>
On Wednesday, 12 October 2022 02:04:06 PDT Edward Welbourne via Development
wrote:
> Henry Skoglund (11 October 2022 22:18) wrote:
> > Sometime in the far future when Qt requires c++20 things might
> > improve: we could use std::source_location::filename
> > (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/util
On Thursday, 13 October 2022 02:31:49 PDT Jörg Bornemann via Development
wrote:
> qt-cmake is to be called by users to configure their projects.
Yup, but then it needs the suffix so that two builds of Qt 6 (or later one of
Qt 7) can be installed in parallel and the user/developer can select whic
On Thursday, 13 October 2022 06:50:06 PDT Edward Welbourne via Development
wrote:
> The present draft of that change has #if-ery to turn duplication of
> column or row names, in QTest data tables, at Qt 7, into a fatal error.
> How realistic do folk think it is that client code authors will respon
On 10/13/22 10:42, Jean-Michaël Celerier wrote:
>The only way you’d have a strong case with this is if it has some
other significant benefit, like compilation speedup.
The main benefit to me is that it entirely removes possibilities for
conflict due to headers having the same name. At least Qt
>The only way you’d have a strong case with this is if it has some other
significant benefit, like compilation speedup.
The main benefit to me is that it entirely removes possibilities for
conflict due to headers having the same name. At least Qt takes great care
of avoiding this but still, notice
QTBUG-107185 revealed that QTest did not check for duplicated test data
tags, i.e. parameters to newRow() / addRow(); when I looked at the
implementation I found it also neglected to check for duplicated
addColumn names. So [0] sets out to fix that.
It turns out that Qt itself has "quite a lot" o
Hi,
Using #pragma once does make assumptions about filesystems and compilers, which
in turn makes assumptions about how Qt is installed and included (and we’ve
seen a handful of…. creative examples of both).
This results in risk to developers who use Qt (many), which must be weighed
against co
On 10/7/22 19:19, Thiago Macieira wrote:
qt-cmake
qt-cmake-standalone-test
qt-configure-module
Then they need to be built with INSTALL_VERSIONED_LINK to the CMake command
qt_internal_add_app().
Does it make sense to have those in a non-developer build? I could see someone
using either qt-cm
Hi, I have two patchs about QQuickPalette:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtdeclarative/+/414503 and
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtdeclarative/+/415277/7.
I submitted them three months ago and added some reviewers, but no response, I
can't find someone more suitable to review
12 matches
Mail list logo
