openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Damjan Jovanovic <damjan....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cppunit -> Google Test migration and old failing tests
Date Mon, 31 Aug 2015 02:10:01 GMT
No they shouldn't. It's possible something broke. Do you have a log of
the build?


On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/29/2015 12:37 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/27/2015 09:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I am in the process of migrating our unit tests from cppunit to Google
>>>> Test. However AOO doesn't build with cppunit and hasn't been routinely
>>>> built with cppunit for a while, which means our unit tests are in a
>>>> state of neglect, and unsurprisingly, there are many failures both
>>>> compiling and running our unit tests.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally we should investigate why and fix the tests. But the APIs
>>>> being tested are complex and unfamiliar to me (eg. SVG parsing), and
>>>> would take very long to investigate properly.
>>>>
>>>> I could commit changes that will just get the tests to compile, then
>>>> fail during testing and stop the build, thus forcing others to fix
>>>> them quickly :-), but I don't imagine that will go down well. So I am
>>>> taking this approach instead:
>>>>
>>>> // FIXME:
>>>> #define RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS 0
>>>>
>>>> #if RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS
>>>> broken_test();
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> Also I am making unit tests run on every build. This way at least some
>>>> unit tests will be run, and any future regressions to tests can be
>>>> caught immediately, while the broken tests can be fixed gradually.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone happy?
>>>
>>> Well pretty much. :)
>>>
>>> I've been watching your commits. Thank you for taking on this
>>> challenging task.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>> OK, just to be clear. It looks like you're converting the cppunit calls
>>> to Google Test api calls. But, what you're saying is the actual use of
>>> the Google test routines needs additional modification to work
>>> correctly, right?
>>
>> Yes that's what I am doing.
>>
>> No, the C++ conversions are very easy (feel free to help ;-)):
>> #include "cppunit..."   =>   #include "gtest/gtest.h"
>> class X : public CppUnit::TestFixture  =>  class X : public ::testing:Test
>> CPPUNIT_ASSERT_MESSAGE(msg, condition)   =>   ASSERT_TRUE(condition) <<
msg
>> CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL(c1, c2)    =>   ASSERT_EQ(c1, c2)
>> CPPUNIT_FALSE(msg)   =>   FAIL() << msg
>> private:  =>  protected:
>> test methods move outside of class declaration and become
>> TEST_F(className, methodName) instead
>> CPPUNIT_TEST...() registrations disappear
>>
>> but the problem is that tests themselves are wrong no matter what the
>> testing library. For example:
>> basegfx::tools::importFromSvgD( aPoly, aSvg );
>> won't compile, as importfromSvgD() requires 4 parameters now instead
>> of just 2 (as I explained in an earlier email, this was caused by
>> commit 1536730 on 2013-10-29 by alg).
>>
>> Damjan
>
> A quick question on these changes. Do these require a reconfigure to
> work correctly? I ran into a problem building with r1698208 so this is
> why I ask.
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>  with a single step.”
>                           --Lao Tzu
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message