Re: [Libreoffice] concept for c++ based subsequenttests

On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:13 +0100, Markus Mohrhard wrote:

> > > hmmm.... i wonder if it would make sense to have UNO API tests written
> > > in Python: that should be much easier on the eyes than boilerplate-heavy
> > > C++/Java... and i think there is a need for tests at the UNO API level
> > > no matter how many core C++ level tests we have, because there is really
> > > no other way to find regressions in that area (nobody tests that
> > > manually), might as well try to maximize the productivity...
> >
> > In general, I agree: Python is the best tool we likely have for this job. OTOH
> > it is bound to the UNO API and I wonder if they can be written in a way that
> > they do not all die with:
> > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice4 .
>
> Personally I would prefer c++ based uno tests. I know that writing
> python code is faster but then we will be again at a point where we
> have a language binding between our test code and our tested code.
> IMHO tests should be written so that debugging them is as easy as
> possible even if it means that writing them might need a bit more
> time, but I might be wrong and python based tests are even more easy
> to debug.

Let me cast my vote for the use of C++ too.  Markus has already outlined
the benefit of using C++ for debugging point of view.  I will also point
out that using python here may alienate some of us who are not a big fan
of the language.  I can at least think of one particular person who is
very allergic to python (and he has a big presence among us). :-)

I personally do love and use python in some of our projects, but I would
stick with C++ for this specific use case as Markus pointed out.

Kohei

-- 
Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc