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

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:00:17AM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
> On 2013-04-04 10:53, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> > Well, IMHO the main problem with the unoapi tests wrt this is that
> > they 'centralized' a lot of the expectations on the UNO-Api --
> > which made them hard to quickly rewrite in C++.
>
> > If this leads to more reliable tests of any kind, which will turn
> > into tests of the C++ kind when they first fail, Im all for it.
>
> These two statements are mutually contradictory. Either Java/Python
> unit tests are easy to convert to C++, or they are not, you can't
> have it both ways :-)

No: The unoapi tests are hard to convert (not because of them being in Java,
but because of the qadevOOo framework needing a C++ equivalent), the complex
tests are not.

> Besides, LO is a C++ program - if you can already code in C++, why
> would you want to switch to a different language to write a unit
> test?

Because there are people willing to write Python tests but unable (or unwilling
to invest the time) to write C++ tests?

I dont see that as a problem. A reliable test should succeed almost always --
and in that case it doesnt matter in what language it is written in. If it
fails, its probably well worth the time to reimplement it in C++ proper.

But I see little reason to dogmatically write all tests in C++ as:
- more people can write tests in Python
- there are tests that might never fail (and hopefully they are the majority)
  and the language they are written in does not matter at all in that case

Best,

Bjoern