Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 12:02 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
So, what can we do here?  How about an additional code module
dedicated 
to subsequentchecks written in Python, which, while serving the
useful 
purpose of testing specific application functionality (and in which
role 
they may deliberately duplicate existing "native" tests), are meant
more 
as a means to improve the PyUNO situation.

The idea would be that Kevin (and others) would fill this with PyUNO 
coding scenarios that cross their mind, discover errors in the PyUNO 
infrastructure, ideally distill tests for those specific errors out
of 
the more general tests (that could then even go into more specific
code 
modules like pyuno or testtools), and eventually prune test snippets 
again that are no longer useful.

I have no objection here.  If the test writters are careful enough to
ensure that the tests are designed to catch the errors in the Python UNO
layer, and not cover or insist on testing the core functionality that
are not really Python specific, then I don't see any downside.

And I would like such tests to be run either independent of the build,
or a part of top level "make check", much like how the current Java UNO
API tests run.


Context


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.