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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Notes on koffice unit tests
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () kde ! org>
Date:       2007-02-11 1:33:19
Message-ID: 200702110233.26085.zander () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Sunday 11 February 2007 01:36, Brad Hards wrote:
> The first problem is that it is sometimes not too obvious where to find the
> test (see 36 and 38 - same executable name) - maybe some kind of consistent
> naming convention (e.g. name equals directory position with - or /
> separators) might be useful. Might also be a bit prettier.

If you know how to alter the cmake files, feel free to prettyfy the output :)

> A more serious problem is that some of the tests are failing or
> segfaulting, and that leads to "yeah, that's always broken" expectations.
>
> Looking at each of the failing tests:
> 9 is segfaulting in kdelibs, in the threadweaver Job destructor.

I wrote that test to detect a problem which turned out to be in threadweaver. 
I don't know if thats been fixed. If it has, its entirely possible the test 
is buggy.

> 10, 36 and 38 may have something wrong with the test setup - dies in
> QCoreApplication. Or maybe it is in my setup?

Its a 'bug' in qtestlib. Or I just have no clue on how to allow GUI stuff in 
it.
I have not found anyone that knows more. I gave up on fixing it.

> 21 is failing both tests (paintedCount is 1 greater than expected in both
> cases for lines 28 and 79), but why this happens requires much more flake
> knowledge than I have.

I wrote that test after I saw people altered flake to do things incorrectly.
I was hoping someone would fix their mistake (I recall emailing about it) but 
nobody did.


> 23 is failing for some reason I don't understand - kspread formula parser
> looks to be at fault.
> 28 and 29 appear to be failing because of excess precision in the
> comparison of floating point numbers.
> 32 is failing because VALUE() doesn't parse fractions yet. I'm waiting on
> some info from Stefan on how to proceed on this.
> 33 is failing because we don't have IMCONJUGATE() yet. Stefan working on
> this?

I don't know these tests.

For sure I agree they should all run correctly.

Do note that if you start a test manually (without cmake) you see more.
-- 
Thomas Zander

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel


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