On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
This:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
2012/4/16 Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz>:
On Monday 16 of April 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
Oh - and finally (Lubos) I pushed an item to the ESC agenda to
discuss whether we should be exposing tons of classes and their symbols
in the product, just to make unit tests work :-)
I assume this is about 69d46dd7a6adfffd71da055bb65108c80d27395f .
...
I was really annoyed by the fact that is was changed without at least
asking and noticing the people who are affected by this change. There
were good reasons to have the old behaviour and I spend some ours
searching for a bug because I had to export a method for ucalc. IMHO
such basic things should not be changed without noticing and
discussing with the people who are directly working in that area.
On a more practical note: I think that can be solved by joining the 14 (!)
toplevel CppunitTests into one test suite containing all the tests. In theory
that would loose use some time because the tests dont execute in parallel, in
practice statically linking the whole sc 14 times is costing waay more.
And I stand by that a test should be able to test internal state. At least when
the "unit" is sc.
Best,
Bjoern
Context
- Re: Make ordering (Re: namespace / typing thrash ...) (continued)
Re: namespace / typing thrash ... · Stephan Bergmann
Re: Automatic using ::rtl::OUString etc. · Lubos Lunak
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.