Re: [Libreoffice] how to acquire an ScDocument reference "from scratch"

If there is no living upstream, surely we shouldn't let the current state of affairs hold us back?
Why not add the features we need, and remove --with-system-cppunit?

I see unit-testing as a project-internal thing anyhow, and it's a build-time dependency, not a 
run-time dependency, so I
don't see --with-system-cppunit as being that important.
But I could be wrong?

I'd just hate to see our unit-testing efforts held back by the lack of an upstream....

Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 12:55 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> > At 4:47pm -0500 Thu, 08 Dec 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 13:05 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> > > > More specifically, I wish there were a way to run exactly and only
> > > > one test (i.e. a single ::testFunction()).
> > >
> > > Fine, sounds like a worthy goal. I suggest you hack cppunit to add
> > > some magic macro wrappers to stringify the function name, and allow
> > > some run-time parameter that will filter the tests immediately on
> > > entry down to the one you want.
> >
> > Oh! I didn't realize cppunit was open for hacking from our end. Let's
>
> Not really.  Keep in mind that LO's configure has --with-system-cppunit, which people do make use 
> of.  The existing
> patches fix bugs or warnings, and should have been upstreamed if there were a living upstream.  
> They do not introduce
> features.
>
> That said, AFAIU, xUnit in general and CppUnit in particular does support the notion of 
> finer-grained test suites,
> allowing one to execute only a subset of a given set of tests.  Never looked into how that works, 
> though.
>
> Stephan
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html