Re: yet another unit test framework? -- was fdo#55814: unit test is missing

I'm extremely grateful to anyone willing to work on improving our unit 
test infrastructure.

However...

On 2013-04-04 10:24, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> I am not going to provide the huge advantages of dynamic type languages
> in general here, but while python is very impressive it *is* truly
> read-write language compare to number of write-only languages, that used
> in LO ecosystem.
>
> Yes, it is probably true that you can not easily debug these unit tests.
> But is the debuggability the only argument here? I doubt it. We have
Yes it very much is. I'm currently struggling with visibility into a 
failing unit test, and the dual Java/C++ nature of the unit test makes 
it incredibly hard for me to find the source of the problem.

I am, with great joy, looking forward to the day when almost all of our 
unit tests are written in C++ so I don't have to jump through hoops when 
debugging.

Besides, the C++ unit tests, thanks to the excellent frameworks we use,  
have very little extra verbiage compared to their python counterparts.


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