[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: kdenonbeta/kunittest
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2005-06-15 15:14:01
Message-ID: 200506151514.01402.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Pushing this a bit, so we reach consensus.

On Sunday 29 May 2005 17:08, Jeroen Wijnhout wrote:
> On Sunday 29 May 2005 14:17, Brad Hards wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:24 pm, Frans Englich wrote:
> > > Now that KUnitTest is in kdelibs, perhaps it could be an idea to remove
> > > it from kdenonbeta?
> >
> > Perhaps, however the version in kdelibs/kdesdk is quite different to the
> > kdenonbeta version.
>
> Actually you should compare kdelibs/kunittest to kdenonbeta/kunittest. The
> code in kdesdk/kunittest is completely new and 100% optional (it contains
> the GUI).
>
> The main difference between kdelibs/kunittest and the kdenonbeta version is
> that kdelibs/kunittest requires KDE.

In general it is confusing and can create problems to have headers/libraries 
with similar names but different behaviors. For example, in kdenonbeta 
$(top_srcdir) is in some directories often in the include path, which leads 
to clashes since different content is covered by the same header names.

I don't know what testing scenarios that exists which kdelibs/kunittest can't 
cover, but if any do, I think such a testing library should be implemented as 
a new library/framework not called KUnitTest.

Does anyone object if I remove kdenonbeta/kunittest? (if someone wants to work 
on it, they can always revive it)


Cheers,

		Frans
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]